As a rule I try to shy away inflammatory criticism, but this was a very poorly researched post.
There has been TREMENDOUS change over the past 10 years! You have to remember that until Deng's reforms in the late 80s, China was a completely closed society that was just beginning to heal from decades of strife and instability (almost 100 years!), including the cultural revolution which literally turned society upside down and placed a freeze on societal progress.
Since the early 90s China has made leaps and bounds in regards to reform and progress. YES they are still MANY problems, but the changes have been very substantial. China will surpass Japan this year as the 2nd largest economy in the world. Outside of the US and Russia, it holds the third largest stockpile of nuclear arms. The accolades are many...
That said, its unfair to really compare China with South Korea/Japan, who've not only had a huge lead time, but also don't have 1.3 billion people to feed, provide jobs for, and yes control.
All of this growth and sudden change has caused problems, corruption and protectionist economic policies (not to mention the increasingly dangerous heights of nationalism the CCP is stimulating among the populace, especially the youth). To say however that Chinese society is corrupt and have been "meddling in business for thousands of years" is absurd and frankly a bit fox-news in rhetoric.
One of the things I love most about HN is that the community here is in general "smarter" than more general-interest social news communities. That said, I wish people would take a more balanced view on China. Yes there are problems and the CCP is no benevolent big brother but as the poster above me has pointed out the issues are not black and white. There are many many many nuances in uplifting a nation of 1.3 billion people into modernity. I'm not convinced that an open, free-market system is the best solution. Perhaps down the road, but not now.
Not to quibble too much, since this is a complex issue, but as it is 2010, "last 10 years" would mean since 2000, so stuff from the 80s and 90s isn't precisely on target.
That said, my points still stands. I used the 90s for contrast purposes. The changes in China over the past 20 years are PROFOUND. Over the past 10 years they are only slightly diminished but no less amazing.
I've been traveling to China annually for pretty much the last 6-7 years and lived there for an extended period of time a few years ago. The changes have been dramatic in both urban and rural areas. In fact I found change to be even more visible in the rural areas. Literally over a year farm fields would be transformed to high-rises and cosmopolitan residential communities.
The changes in infrastructure/economic development has also fostered great changes/progress towards a more civil society, etc.
Even if we were just to compare 2000 vs 2010 the changes are great. To say that there have been no major progress in 10 years and to suggest that South Korean and Japanese development in that same period of time has been greater than China's is patently absurd. Like dum-dum circus absurd.
To be clear I am not suggesting that Japan had the same level of growth from 2000 vs 2010 rather when you compare growth at similar levels of development the growth seems less impressive. I used to think much more highly of China but after watching how much supervision a group of visiting academics had I became far less enchanted.
PS: Visiting China it's easy to overestimate the level of growth if you are anywhere near the coast, I would suggest you wonder around western china to get some idea of how far the country has to go.
Comparing the rate of political change in China from 1988 - 1998 to the rate of change in 2000 - 2010 it's clearly slowed down. As to corruption I can only suggest you research the topic both from a historical perspective and a modern business one. Read up on how Google local competitor has benefited from close government ties and multiply that by every significant business in China. Look at the percentage of multi millionaires with close family connections to government and suggest corruption is not a major issue.
China has had just as long to grow economically as Japan and South Korea. Yet, only by ignoring the vast difference in population sizes are they in any way comparable from an economic standpoint. Suggesting that a non "free-market" system is a better approach when it's provided such poor returns is ignoring history.
The numbers I've seen show that economic growth since China joined WTO in October 2000 surpasses any other period you may choose. In my original comment, I mention "change" (social, political, and economic) in China over the past 10 years simply because I've lived in Shanghai since summer 2000 and personally witnessed the change.
I can't speak for South Korea or Japan because I've never lived there and have only read about those places.
Although I personally lean toward "free-market" policies, I recognize that a significant portion of the U.S. economy (my country) does not operate on free-market principles. Energy, Government, some aspects of Health Care, mostly operate under controlled, non-free-market conditions.
The rate of change will obviously be grater from 1988-1998 than from 2000-2010 because prior to 1988 China was a completely closed society (especially prior to 1978) and just beginning to wake up from the cultural revolution, a highly chaotic period where progress LITERALLY stopped.
appears to disproves your point. Not accounting for inflation, nominal GDP grew about 8,000 bln from 1990-2000, which is paralleled in only 5 years between 2000-2005.
As for corruption, I don't think you've done much to further your argument that "China has been a historical corrupt society for thousands of years". Benefiting from close ties to the government is a natural economic condition found in every country. Hello US Lobbying industry?
And the percentage of multi-millionaires with close family connections doesn't say much either, only that China has a growing class of oligarchs, again a condition found in many many many other countries.
That said, it wouldn't be fair for me to wholly dismiss your points. Yes corruption is widespread, but I don't see how that proves your point that China as a society has been utilizing corruption to cheat their business partners for thousands of years. That is an absurd point that is not at all grounded in history nor facts.
Finally I think you mis-understood my point in regards to S. Korea/Japan. They have had LONGER to grow economically in the sense that until the mid 1970s China was essentially a collapsed country, with really NO economy. Irregardless of time, both S. Korea and Japan grew their economies out of authoritarian governments. S. Korea was for most of the latter half of the 20th century a military state and Japanese politics was dominated by a single party. Both not exactly what I would call open democratic regimes.
No idea what you mean by "a non 'free-market' system is a better approach when it's provided such poor returns...", can you define "poor returns"? China has been one of the fastest growing economies for the past 30 years. How is that poor returns? In fact, its the very authoritarian regime you lambast as being economically inefficient that has been cited as the source of China's seemingly "magical" growth.
Lastly, you absolutely CANNOT ignore China's massive population when analyzing the country's current and future states. Having to support a nation of 1.3 billion people is an epically difficult task and as I state in a prior comment, ALL problems in China derive from its population problem.
Anyways the point of all of this is not to defend China. The hyperbole and level of mis-understanding among the HN community in regards to China is absurd. This is not a good/bad issue. China's problems are nuanced, just like all things in life. It helps no one by making blanket statements that are derived from quick google searches and superficial understanding of complex issues.
I am not suggesting that you compare China to other Japan today rather how quickly they become industrialized. In 1965, Japan's nominal GDP was estimated at just over $91 billion. Fifteen years later, the nominal GDP had soared to a record $1.065 trillion by 1980. (11x growth in 15 years.) By comparison China's growth from 1989 to 2004 was ~9x (from your chart). At the time there was a lot of talk about Japan taking over the world, which did not happen for various reasons, primarily because once you get to near parity with the rest of the world further economic development requires innovation.
As to poor returns I meant that China's growth has been has increased as they approached a free market, and there is little evidence to support the advantage (in terms of growth) of a non free market. Which was a response to I'm not convinced that an open, free-market system is the best solution. Perhaps down the road, but not now.
PS: I am not saying china's growth is slow, rather young people don't have a lot to compare it to. Industrialization and effective free markets result in massive economic growth. So I don't think the Chinese government is responsible for growth so much as letting it happen.
Edit: As to corruption it's something you have to see first hand. It has many forms but look at Google for a classic example. The most blatant example of which was they used DNS to randomly point to Google's competitor; now just think about what that means. Sadly this is closer to the norm than most people acknowledge.
Good comments lhuang. I am often surprised at the negative "drive-by" comments against China. China does have a lot of problems to solve. I'm truly amazed they've made it this far and we should spend a bit of time celebrating their advances if we expect them to take our criticism. I'm sure there are people in government in China that are just in it to pull money out of the system. But in my experience, they are the minority. A China government official must make net positive progress or get replaced.
Absolutely. At the very least this guy will help you read between the lines and act as a good gut-check to your interview experience.
I would reiterate what Tom_B said about greater responsibility but I think it should be noted the kind of non-profit he worked at. Depending on organization, its mission, and people non-profits can be no better than the corporate machine.
Talking to the former director would lend some valuable insight into the culture and what its "really" like on the day-to-day.
1. There have been numerous "breaches" conducted by journalists, etc. over the years.
2. I think the greater point isn't that the TSA is ineffective but rather that they are inefficient. Making millions of travelers each year jump through more and more hoops isn't making any of us safer. A smart, determined, terrorist will easily smuggle something aboard. I've personally walked through security a half dozen times with a lighter in my bag (forgot it was even there) when flying both domestic and international, including going from AMS to IAD. Plus how many TSA screeners have you seen just aimlessly do their job? You think these guys have real incentive to catch smart/determined terrorists?
The fact is the TSA has burned through billions of dollars (your money) that may have been better spent on intelligence and more robust "threat list" monitoring systems. Not to mention on a bevy of other issues they could have tackled with that money.
The TSA going after a few bloggers is inane. Do you feel safer knowing that a bunch of knucklehead TSA agents wasted tax payer money to intimidate a bunch of bloggers? Will the confidentiality of a stupid list of hoops travelers must jump through make you safer?
Is the end-result even a net positive for society? Is it even CLOSE?
I forgot that I had a multitool attached to my keys when I went through security about a year ago. I actually took my keys out, put them in the basket, and walked through. No agent said anything until the return trip, where I was asked to either check my bag or throw it away.
I used to have a mini-Leatherman attached to my key ring, which had a small knife on it. I'd often forget to take it off when traveling, and it made it through airport security on at least 4 trips (so at least 8 times through the x-ray machine), probably more. Ironically, it wasn't the TSA who eventually took it from me, but security outside a club in San Francisco.
True but most foreigners view the H1B as the first step to getting a green card - something highly highly desirable among the scores of white collar foreigners working in the US.
From my experiences, I know quite a few who after getting their H1B feel "locked" down with the company that hired them. This in turn allows the company to abuse the shit out of them because they know that the only option for most of these people, especially in the current economic climate, is to stfu and keep on taking the abuse lest they want to return back to sweatshop call centers with 1/10th the pay.
Then these guys get further screwed when it comes to the annual review & promotion process when their american counterparts (i.e. white males w/o fobby accents) get bumped ahead of them.
A blanket statement for sure; I realize there are more nuances to this but Ive seen it happen ALL-THE-TIME.
Not sure if you can really bucket this under "theoretical research." Theoretical research is at least grounded in logic and paper rationale. This case seems like a mix of equal parts ponzi scheme showmanship, conspiracy theory, and tech-illiterate paranoids.
I don't even think this ever got to the hands of the NSA or people who have the technical proficiency to call bs (this in and of itself is surprising given the sheer stupidity of what this clown was trying to sell).
If anything this fraud was faciliated by petty political and institutional bureaucratic jostling for relevance, power, and funding. Basically some tards, convinced that they're onto something big, hides it from everyone else because they don't want to share in the credit/fame. Not surprising given this is the US govt. Hell most corporations are like this too.
What I find most troubling about all of this is that after 9/11 there was a such a stink about intra-department communication and cooperation. The argument being that if people simply talked more with one another lapses in security and plain dum-dum-ness would be greatly reduced if not eliminated outright. Fuck, Bush even created a whole department to do just this!
Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.