Behind the curtain of the Global Times

If you’re curious, you’ll find everything you need to know here. Yes, it quotes me, and also Jeremy Goldkorn, Michael Anti and others. I especially like the headline. But doesn’t it apply to nearly all Chinese media?

Update: Wow, we’re on a roll today. Don’t miss this follow-up.

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 82 Comments

King Tubby
The national treasury is overflowing, while farmers and migrant workers remain dirt poor.

Do you know the difference between wealth and income, or do you prefer to leave your inane pontification unmarred by pesky facts and numbers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth

November 13, 2011 @ 3:16 am | Comment

Here we go again. Chinese farmers have little income, yet are plenty wealthy…apparently.

November 13, 2011 @ 4:11 am | Comment

Oh, and look, prc doesn’t fare nearly as well on the distribution of income list. Which explains why mansbestfriend only wants to talk about the wealth list, where prc looks better. And making the Prc look better is the only objective.

If change of wealth = income – expenses, and china currently has a huge income gap, I wonder what will happen to the wealth gap over time? And since this income gap is a fairly recent development ( before the 1980s, everyone was dirt poor), is it any wonder that the wealth gap hasn’t developed in all it’s glory yet?

November 13, 2011 @ 7:28 am | Comment

SK Cheung
Here we go again. Chinese farmers have little income, yet are plenty wealthy…apparently.

That may be the way the special kids interpret it. No, they are not “plenty wealthy”. But they are not picking scraps out of garbage cans and starving on a daily basis. Only 7% of children in China were severely underweight vs. 49% in India. If we were to use “income” or “GDP” for everything as you are wont to do, we’d assume a much smaller gap between the two nations.

If change of wealth = income – expenses

Except change of wealth is not income – expenses, you’re forgetting that land and property value is appreciating faster in the less developed areas of China and that transfer payments are not included under the income statistics. If anything, developing countries tend to be MORE imbalanced than developed ones for this reason.

And the anti-Chinese shills love saying China started developing earlier than India to explain away democracy’s failures, so then why is wealth in India so unevenly distributed?

November 13, 2011 @ 8:59 am | Comment

“No, they are not “plenty wealthy”. But they are not picking scraps out of garbage cans and starving on a daily basis. Only 7% of children in China were severely underweight vs. 49% in India.”
—and survival on a daily basis has to do with income, not wealth. I’m not saying India doesn’t have a problem. In fact, I’m not the type with the pathological need to compare like you. But it doesn’t change the fact that china has a huge income gap, and that is a problem, independent of whatever happens elsewhere. That is the concept that Ccp apologists like you have yet to learn.

“Except change of wealth is not income – expenses…”
—well that’s funny, because I’m quoting the exact definition for “change of wealth” that is used in the wiki link you provided. That’s the bitch with putting things in black and white. You’d think it would be unbecoming to try to deny it. But I guess you’re just that much more disingenuous than the average bear. Not that I expect anything better from a Ccp apologist.

Not to mention that your link is based on data from 2000. Based on the income gap that has developed during that time, I would expect a more contemporary assessment of wealth gap to reflect that change accordingly. And at the end of the day, I don’t imagine that knowledge of an apparently small wealth gap would keep poor rural farmers warm at night. But that wouldn’t concern mansbestfriend, since such an admission might make the Ccp look bad, and he’s not a poor rural farmer in china in any event.

November 13, 2011 @ 3:17 pm | Comment

SK Cheung
and survival on a daily basis has to do with income, not wealth.

Take off the blinders for have a second. Are you even reading the crap you type? Of COURSE wealth has to do with survival, if you have an asset you can sell you can always trade them for food, medicine, or whatever else.

But it doesn’t change the fact that china has a huge income gap, and that is a problem, independent of whatever happens elsewhere.

Except I already tore you a new one on this point. Income doesn’t include living costs, transfer payments or asset appreciation.

Not to mention that your link is based on data from 2000.

Credit Suisse released data from around 2008 that says pretty much the same thing.

I would expect a more contemporary assessment of wealth gap to reflect that change accordingly

Wrong. See the point about transfer payments and living costs you ignored for the sixth or seventh time, because it reflects poorly on your beloved Western ruled corporatocracy.

November 14, 2011 @ 5:44 am | Comment

You are almost too dumb to be a Ccp apologist. Perhaps you deserve a new category unto yourself. If you need to barter/trade/sell an asset/wealth in order to attain a necessity of life, do you know what you’re left with? That’s right Einstein, less wealth/fewer assets. In other words, in your own little bizarre scenario, a poor farmer in order to survive would have to personally and actively increase his own wealth gap, simply due to inadequate income. And besides, wake up and smell the coffee, buddy. What assets would a poor farmer have to sell? Do you think he’s taking his Bentley to the market to trade for food. You are hilarious, and the funniest part is you aren’t trying to be. Seriously, dude. Grow a brain. You could use it.

“Except I already tore you a new one on this point. Income doesn’t include living costs, transfer payments or asset appreciation.”
—learn to read, and to use even an ounce of logic (even if it’s the only paltry bit you have). I’m talking about income gap, which….ummm…includes income. You’re trying meekly to talk about something other than the income gap, with your cost of living etc. that doesn’t change the fact that china has a huge problem with its income gap, and over time, the wealth gap will simply follow. You should add reading lessons to your burgeoning wish list.

“Credit Suisse released data from around 2008 that says pretty much the same thing.”
—now why would a guy show 11 year old data if 3 year old data is available? The mind of a Ccp apologist is truly a wonderful thing.

“Wrong. See the point about transfer payments and living costs you ignored for the sixth or seventh time, because it reflects poorly on your beloved Western ruled ”
—well then by George lets see some contemporary data. Besides, transfer payments might look good on a per capita level, but how does that improve the actual tangible wealth of the poor rural farmer with low income and low wealth? I wonder if the knowledge of these transfer payments keeps farmers warm at night.
As for cost of living, let’s review the formula for the slower members of the class like our slipper-fetcher here, shall we? Change of wealth= income -expenses (where you can include cost of living as an expense category). At any given (and even fixed) level of expenses, your income needs to exceed it to have any net wealth gain. If a farmer makes $10 and has $5 in expenses (a 50% ratio), his wealth increases by $5. With the income gap, let’s say a city dude makes $100. If his expense ratio is the same, his wealth has still increased 10 fold compared to the farmer. His expense ratio would have to be 95% for his wealth gain to be brought down to the level of the farmer, based on their income gap. It would not be tough for a city guy to earn 10 times what a rural Chinese farmer makes.
Could his cost of living be 19 times that of a farmer? Depends how he lives, I suppose. Oh, but wait, transfer payments to the rescue, at least according to our trusty mutt. Say, those “payments” must come in handy for all those poor farmers. I wonder how much of that has trickled down to them?

November 14, 2011 @ 9:16 am | Comment

SK Cheung
barter/trade/sell an asset/wealth

Wow, you figured it out. That’s EXACTLY the point of wealth. Good job, you’re now as smart as second grader. We should make you a TV show.

a poor farmer in order to survive would have to personally and actively increase his own wealth gap, simply due to inadequate income

So you’re saying that the evil rich in China don’t have expenses? What a joke. You really just don’t have a clue about China at all, have you even been there? Why do you even comment?

Seriously, dude. Grow a brain.

Yes, I’m working on your implant right now. The lessons aren’t working.

income gap, and over time, the wealth gap will simply follow.

Learn how to read. The “income gap” alone is about as useful as the gap between your two ears. It does NOT translate directly into a “wealth gap” because living costs and transfer payments are huge factor in wealth-building for the poor. This is why your beloved democratic nations are all failures with regard to wealth inequality.

now why would a guy show 11 year old data if 3 year old data is available? The mind of a Ccp apologist is truly a wonderful thing.

Because I posted the Credit Suisse link 3 times and you ignored it 3 times. Too many words and numbers for a schoolkid like you. The “mind” of a Western corporate drone is a wonderful thing.

https://www.credit-suisse.com/news/doc/credit_suisse_global_wealth_databook.pdf

Here it is, for the fourth time. If you google “peking duck credit suisse” I link relevant data 3 times not including all the posts Richard deletes.

http://www.pekingduck.org/2011/03/from-the-inbox-is-it-okay-to-love-china/ – Notice how I posted it right here, and that’s not counting all the times Richard has removed my posts for using 1/1000 of the ad hominems you or slim might eject from your face-holes on any given day.

Next I expect you to 1) ignore the data 2) tell me you can’t understand the info and blame me for not explaining it, because you’re not smart enough to Google it in the first place 3) get caught up on semantics

Garnish with some stale internet insults, repeat.

but how does that improve the actual tangible wealth of the poor rural farmer with low income and low wealth?

Here we go again. This is the point where I start to genuinely feel sorry for you, so I apologize again for being mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_payment

In economics, a transfer payment (or government transfer or simply transfer) is a redistribution of income in the market system. These payments are considered to be nonexhaustive because they do not directly absorb resources or create output. Examples of certain transfer payments include welfare (financial aid), social security, and government subsidies for certain businesses (firms).

So yeah, they literally DO keep the farmers warm at night, considering energy is subsidize in the countryside by the Chinese government. Transfer payments obviously allow the poor in China to pay (partially) for food, medicine, and fuel at a lower price and thus contribute more of their income to savings. Tax EXEMPTIONS have a similar effect, which would be included under living costs. Then they are often given access to government housing.

Change of wealth= income -expenses

We’ve made some progress here. Before I stepped in you didn’t even know the difference between wealth and GDP. You’re welcome.

But no, “income” in inequality jargon is PRE-TAX income. Your comparison is a joke BTW, urban:rural disparity is closer to 3:1 not 10:1.

So the real equation is Change in Wealth = Appreciation + (Official Income * Tax Factor) – Living Expenses + Transfer Payments. So yeah, you neglected maybe 80% of the equation.

November 15, 2011 @ 12:00 am | Comment

OK, let’s dispense with your stupid points first, of which there are many, as usual. Then we’ll get to the really fun (and funny) stuff.

“That’s EXACTLY the point of wealth.”
—actually, wealth is something you want to accumulate. The point of wealth is not to spend it on necessities like food. That’s what income is for. Sure, you can cash in your wealth. But every time you do so, you’re left with less of it. And poor farmers aren’t starting out with much of it to begin with. You really are too stupid for words.

“So you’re saying that the evil rich in China don’t have expenses?”
—where did I say this? Why is it that CCP apologists like you always have to argue against imaginary statements? Are you guys incapable of arguing against actual statements? (Actually, don’t bother answering that, since the answer is self-evident). But what I did say was that a poor farmer trading in what meagre wealth he does have for the necessities of life has just increased his own wealth gap with the rich. And that, not surprisingly, remains unaddressed by you. Gosh, at least try dude. Don’t worry about sounding stupid. That’s expected. But to not even try…that’s just sad. Where’s your CCP apologist spirit?

“It does NOT translate directly into a “wealth gap” because living costs and transfer payments are huge factor in wealth-building for the poor.”
—I didn’t say it translates directly. What I did say was that when you have an income gap, the wealth gap is sure to follow, albeit with a certain time lag. More on this later…it’s the funny part I spoke of.

“Because I posted the Credit Suisse link 3 times and you ignored it 3 times.”
—yes, thanks again for that. See below for the really funny stuff. For now, suffice it to say that watching you hang yourself is amusing stuff indeed.

“considering energy is subsidize in the countryside by the Chinese government.”
—yes, subsidized. To the point of being free? If so, then you have a point. If not, then that poor farmer will still need income to pay even the reduced rate. That’s the income they have much less of compared to others because of that nagging income gap again. Don’t you just hate how it keeps popping up and wrecking what little you have left of your “argument”? And it’s going to get worse for you later.

“Transfer payments obviously allow the poor in China to pay (partially) for food, medicine, and fuel at a lower price and thus contribute more of their income to savings.”
—even at reduced expenses, the poor will have no change in wealth unless their income exceeds said expenses. It’s that basic formula again. If their expenses are low, but their income is just as low, they’re still spinning their wheels as far as wealth is concerned. Do you not understand basic arithmetic?

“real equation is Change in Wealth = Appreciation + (Official Income * Tax Factor) – Living Expenses + Transfer Payments.”
—first, this assumes the poor farmer with minimal assets owns anything whose value would actually appreciate, but nice try. Second, the poor farmer isn’t receiving transfer payments; the effect of those transfer payments is absorbed into those subsidies which go towards nominally reducing their actual expenses. So your “real” equation is nothing more than hot air…much like you. And it’s going to get worse for you.

But after all this time, here comes the absolutely best part. Based on your Wiki link, in 2000, China’s GINI was 55%. In the Credit Suisse report, page 123, for 2010, China’s GINI was 69%. Do you know what that means, Einstein? That’s right, buddy, China’s wealth gap has increased from 2000 to 2010. Like I said in #56, “Based on the income gap that has developed during that time, I would expect a more contemporary assessment of wealth gap to reflect that change accordingly.” So thanks for providing the numbers to prove my point precisely. You are so good at fetching stuff. You certainly come by your moniker of mansbestfriend honestly.

Now, you have done a complete face-plant as I’ve described. Based on your prior behaviour, and the dearth of character and poor quality of upbringing that it reflects, you will simply slither away and hide rather than admit that you’ve yet again been humping the wrong tree. I suppose that’s understandable. Better luck next time. And next time, even if the logic exceeds your grasp as it always does, at least have the meagre intelligence to read and understand your own links, just so you’re not constantly and repeatedly shooting yourself in the foot. The CCP trains you well…even with the shooting yourself in the foot that, which they’re obviously expert at. At some point, I might feel a pang of pity for you…after I finish ROFL.

November 15, 2011 @ 5:00 am | Comment

SK Cheung
The point of wealth is not to spend it on necessities like food.

No, the point of wealth is to spend it how you need to, dumbass. Clearly few are going to have to mortgage the home to buy food but if it ever came down to it they could.

To the point of being free? If so, then you have a point.

No, stupid. If they pay less for fuel it narrows the gap. It isn’t considered a part of “income”.

the poor will have no change in wealth unless their income exceeds said expenses.

Who says their income doesn’t exceed expenses, stupid? BECAUSE the government makes food and fuel and housing affordable, they can contribute to savings – unlike the vast majority of the bottom decile in literally every other country on the list. China is one of the rare nations where the bottom decile is not living off of debt, stupid.

this assumes the poor farmer with minimal assets owns anything whose value would actually appreciate, but nice try.

They own land, stupid. Their livestock also sell for more each year.

China’s GINI was 55%. In the Credit Suisse report, page 123, for 2010, China’s GINI was 69%.

You do realize that you can apply the “GINI” to any set of numbers right, stupid? You’re so dumb you probably looked at the income figure. That’s just how mentally challenged you are. But you’re making progress, I admit, even if you are at the level of a brain-dead chimp.

after I finish ROFL.

After you finish emptying your drool cup, which probably has more brain cells in it than your skull.

November 15, 2011 @ 5:50 am | Comment

And it’s not even GINI, it’s Gini, named after an Italian guy. You’re an idiot.

November 15, 2011 @ 5:50 am | Comment

So I looked at the information again, it turns out even you have realized that Gini can be applied to more than just income.

You have progressed indeed, my mentally challenged friend. Now please explain why China’s wealth distribution is far less stratified than any developing democracies that are excessively touted by the West’s corporate media (India, Brazil) and then why China’s government needs to be overthrown for a wealth imbalance that every nation has.

Oh right, to West fanboys it’s only bad when China does it.

November 15, 2011 @ 6:19 am | Comment

“Clearly few are going to have to mortgage the home to buy food but if it ever came down to it they could.”
—and just as clearly, when you don’t have enough income, like those poor rural farmers, that’s what they’d be contemplating…assuming they even have a home to sell. And sure, you can spend your wealth. But as I’ve said at least twice now, once you spend your wealth, you have less of it left, and a bigger gap with those who still have some. That, for the truly stupid like you, would be increasing the wealth gap that you like to talk about so much. How stupid are you?

“If they pay less for fuel it narrows the gap”
—huh? What “gap” does it narrow? If anything, paying less for fuel would reduce their expense, which would allow them to increase their wealth for any given level of income. But the point is that paying less for fuel means you’re still paying something for fuel, and you still need some income to do that. If they got fuel for free, then your “transfer payments” might actually keep them warm at night. Otherwise, part of their paltry income gets spent on fuel, which means it can’t be spent on something else, or it can’t go towards increasing their wealth. Grow a brain, dude.

“Who says their income doesn’t exceed expenses”
—I said UNLESS. Geez, why can’t disingenuous CCP apologists like you ever read?

“they can contribute to savings”
—IFF (that’s if and only if, for the truly retarded like you) income exceeds expenses, as I said before. Man, saying it once, or ten times, is clearly not enough for the thick-skulled like you.

“They own land, stupid.”
—oh really? Actually, it’s long term lease rights, not clear title ownership. But why quibble about details, right?

“You’re so dumb you probably looked at the income figure.”
—i really don’t think you’re doing 50 cents of work here. I even gave you the page number. The heading of the table says “Distribution of wealth within countries and regions, 2010”. I mean seriously, are you at the stage of needing to be spoon-fed data from a report that YOU linked to yourself? Have you even read the thing? LOL.

“So I looked at the information again”
—when you say “again”, you mean “for the first time”, right? You’re pathetic, even for a CCP apologist.

And oh look, the obfuscation begins. My point was that with the current income gap that China has and which is undeniable, the wealth gap ABSOLUTELY MUST follow, after a time delay. And with your own numbers (thanks, btw, good doggie), the GINI has increased from 55% to 69% from 2000 to 2010, to precisely underscore my point. And your response? Well…ummm…what about other countries? Ah yes, when in doubt (if you’re a CCP apologist), compare. But when you gather yourself from your embarrassing face-plant, you’ll realize that your wealth gap argument has just gone ka-boom. Too bad; so sad.

Anyway, good job bringing up the Credit Suisse report. At the very least, this should shut you up the next time the income gap gets mentioned, and you try to stick your foot into your mouth about wealth gap. You’ve done that enough already, methinks. And of course, not one acknowledgement of being totally out to lunch on a point you’ve been trying to make several times, as you point out yourself. Ah yes, there’s that lack of character and piss-poor upbringing coming into play once more. It’s like all you CCP apologists are related, you guys are so much alike.

Oh, and if you actually look at that table, India is at 78%. Worse than China, no doubt, but China is hardly “far less stratified”. Brazil isn’t in that table. Anyhow, i suggest you read that report. Quite interesting. Enjoy. I know I did.

November 15, 2011 @ 8:52 am | Comment

SK Cheung
If anything, paying less for fuel would reduce their expense, which would allow them to increase their wealth for any given level of income.

Finally, your self-inflicted stupidity has lifted to a minor extent. Your inborn idiocy however, I cannot speak for. I have passed my test as certified learning disabled instructor.

IFF (that’s if and only if, for the truly retarded like me) income exceeds expenses

Except, as the data shows, this is true for even the bottom decile in China. Good thing you were paying attention and aren’t just a shameless prostitute for the West’s corporatocracy.

Actually, it’s long term lease rights, not clear title ownership

Oh right a 99 year lease that you can sell, but what are facts compared to your stupidity and whining?

I even gave you the page number.

Considering you ignored the data 4 times before, I was simply shocked that temporarily held your retardation at bay to look at the information. Too bad you stopped short of actually understanding anything, and just beelined the figure you wanted.

But you’re mentally challenged and I will be patient. It’s hard for people with your profound retardation to learn things. I am proud to have helped. Take this to your mother and tell her she should be happy she decided not to abort when they realized you had so many congenital defects.

the wealth gap ABSOLUTELY MUST blah blah blahdeblah

Shut up. Your point was that CHINA MUST BE DESTROYED OVERTHROW THE CCP TODAY NOW NOW NOWNOWNOWNOW!

You really learned how to be a shameless lying whore from your mother.

you’ll realize that your wealth gap argument has just gone ka-boom.

You’ll realize you’re mentally retarded when my point was that China’s wealth gap is not bad enough to warrant the immediate, overnight destruction of all governing agencies in China you and the corporate masters who hold your leash demand. You really are a depraved moral prostitute. Too bad there is no intellectual version of syphilis for you to contract, though you are already so feeble minded that it might not be necessary.

Brazil isn’t in that table.

Yes it is, you’re just retarded. Try the search function, idiot. Control F. It’s clearly under the “Latin America” section in case you went looking for Brazil under Africa. I know you’re pretty stupid but you’re still full of surprises. It’s 79.6, by the way. Which is greater than 70ish. I’m awaiting for goldilocks theory on why India and Brazil both have higher Ginis, but I think the goldilocks theory of why your IQ is between that of a sewer rat and a pail of dogshit would be far more enlightening.

November 15, 2011 @ 9:19 am | Comment

“Finally, your self-inflicted stupidity has lifted to a minor extent. Your inborn idiocy however, I cannot speak for. I have passed my test as certified learning disabled instructor”
— I shoot down yet another of your stupid statements, and you try to claim credit for helping? Yes, thank you for repeatedly saying stupid things for me to shoot down. You ccp apologists do tend to be very accommodating that way. So paying less for fuel narrows which gap again? Too stupid to fathom, idiots like you.

“Except, as the data shows, this is true for even the bottom decile in China. Good thing you were paying attention and aren’t just a shameless prostitute for the West’s…”
— so wealth is in fact growing ever so slowly even at the bottom of the food chain. That’s great. But we’re talking about the wealth GAP, remember? So even as wealth slowly grows at the bottom, the income gap at the top results in an ever expanding wealth gap upwards. Which is exactly as I had told you. You are not a particularly swift or bright student, which makes you typical. For a ccp apologist. Here’s the other thing. You can’t even focus enough to stick to one argument. One second it’s wealth, the next it’s wealth gap, and you can’t tell up from down any longer.

You’re right. It is a long term lease and farmers can sell it for food if they like. And what does that leave them with? That’s right, fewer assets and a bigger wealth gap than they started with. Still No answer for that, I see. What else is new.

“Considering you ignored the data 4 times before, I was simply shocked that temporarily held your retardation at bay to look …”
—which you, as the person who offered it himself, had clearly not bothered to read. Cuz if you had read it even briefly, you would’ve realized your wealth gap argument was a piece of crap. As it was, a cursory scan of the document was sufficient to blow your argument to bits. In retrospect, I should’ve looked sooner, and made a fool of you earlier. Alas, you were probably saying something else retarded at the time, and even I run out of original ways to call you an idiot from time to time. Though it’s not for a lack of practice.

“Shut up. Your point was that CHINA MUST BE DESTROYED OVERTHROW THE CCP TODAY NOW NOW NOWNOWNOWNOW!”
—lol. Is someone getting a little tense? Poor baby. The ccp does need to go, and Chinese people will be better for it. But right now my point is just to laugh at your stupidity, your inability to grasp the topic you brought up yourself, your failure to understand the data you offer, and your general lack of intelligence. I think that’s enough for now. I don’t want to overburden your limited faculties.

“You’ll realize you’re mentally retarded when my point was that China’s wealth gap is not bad enough to warrant the immediate, overnight destruction of all governing agencies in China…”
—lol again. Yet another ccp apologist standby. When your argument gets absolutely annihilated, don’t have the strength of character to acknowledge it. Instead, just change the argument immediately, obfuscate like hell, and hope nobody notices. I must say that is extremely stereotypical of the whole lot of you. Effective? Not so much. Predictable? Like the tides. Although you debase it a step further with the std references. Way to go. Nice display of initiative. Hopefully that will not go unnoticed by your handlers.

Thanks for fetching me the brazil number. Good doggie. Gosh, for all the laughter you’ve provided today, maybe I should get you a doggie treat. Anyhow, looks like brazil is like India, about 10 points higher than china as of 2010. But as we all know ( and now even you should know) china’s income gap will be raising her wealth Gini number in due time. That realization that I enlightened you to today is free of charge. Least I could do for the laughs you’ve given me.

November 15, 2011 @ 12:04 pm | Comment

Special Cheungsie
The ccp does need to go, and Chinese people will be better for it.

Kinda like how Brazil and India are so much better off, right? So are you saying that democracy is superior, but Brazil and India are inferior for other reasons?

Should I point you back to stormfront?

November 16, 2011 @ 4:34 am | Comment

So even as wealth slowly grows at the bottom, the income gap at the top results in an ever expanding wealth gap upwards.

Except if you weren’t a drooling idiot, you’d realize that DEBT is growing among the 10% poorest elsewhere while the rich get richer. Miss the whole OWS thing? You know, that enormous movement involving people who aren’t shameless, mindless shills for the West’s America-led corporatocracy?

[Last line deleted for obscenity]

November 16, 2011 @ 4:42 am | Comment

I see we’re reaching the final death throes of your “point”. Out of the 7 points in my last comment, you only managed feeble responses to 2. That sounds about right for your level of intelligence.

I didn’t say brazil and India are “so much better off”. Remember, argue against what I say and not what you hope I had said. Shouldn’t be that difficult. You can do it! Those countries certainly have some catching up to do, and their problems can’t be blamed on the ccp. But they’re on the right track. None of which changes china’s issues, but I undestand your impediment that prevents you from getting out of bed in the morning without first making comparisons. It’s quite common among you people.

“you’d realize that DEBT is growing among the 10% poorest elsewhere while the rich get richer. Miss the whole OWS thing?”
—quite true. I didn’t say debt wasn’t growing elsewhere. See above for your lesson of the day. But one thing is for sure. Chinas wealth gap is growing ( thanks again btw), and with her increasing income gap, we all know where that wealth gap is heading as well. In fact, if Chinese people had the freedoms enjoyed by people in other countries, they may have had themselves a little get together this past month as well. Alas, they don’t enjoy those basic freedoms. But as chinas wealth gap continues to grow, maybe they’ll have their own unique movement with Chinese characteristics, fashioned under the ccp’s penchant to allow “pop-off” valves from time to time, made necessary only by their obstinence towards such expression at all other times.

Now did someone get a potty mouth at the end there? Lol. You should know that a point that can’t be made without an expletive or obscenity probably isn’t worth making. Sounds like you missed out on quite a number of lessons in your earlier years.

November 16, 2011 @ 8:54 am | Comment

SKC – China’s wealth gap isn’t growing – all the rich Chinese are migrating out to the West and taking their money with them 🙂 It’s all a CCP plan to eradicate poverty (all relative, you see – no rich people, ergo, no one can be called poor!).
One wonders what the Chinese OWS protest would have been like hadn’t a certain event that “didn’t” happen in 1989 still not be fresh in people’s minds….guess we’ll never find out.
But China’s great – the GDP statistics tell us it is great. These are open stats, aren’t they? Not state secrets…? But it was great when I was there – everyone was happy and no one was worried about the food or the safety of trains or buses or the rising prices or the unaffordable housing or the corruption and how kids have to study hard to get into a good school only to find out guanxi works a lot better – no studying required (yeah, this one is something I know of personally). Think of the benefits of having a hazy atmosphere – no melanomas! It’s great! And we know there’s no need to worry because the CCPs own stats tell us the air is not that bad (only them pesky US figures suggest it’s “crazy bad” – but they use some other statistical method using finer numbers or something – a western plot, anyway).
Yeah, it’s great to be Chinese – especially when you don’t have to live there, eh Merp?

November 16, 2011 @ 11:30 am | Comment

To mike,
Yes, I’d heard there was and continues to be an exodus of chinese wealth overseas. I’ve heard it often looks like the “astronaut” phenomenon out of HK back in the 1980s, where those with high income and accumulated wealth shuttle their assets and families overseas, while staying behind to continue to enjoy their high income and to further accumulate wealth. It’s a great system if you can avail yourself to it. But of course not everyone can.

It would be quite the irony if the majority of wealth ends up leaving china. They’ve already been through a stage where everyone is equally poor, and that didn’t work out so well. When Deng said some people have to get rich first, I don’t think his intended corollary was for those first lucky ones to then get out of Dodge.

November 16, 2011 @ 1:49 pm | Comment

Special Cheungsie
Remember, argue against what I say

CHINA IS EVIL! DESTROY THE CCP! ABOLISH GOVERNMENT IN CHINA! DEMOCRACY IS GREAT! CORPORATISM IS GREAT!

Did I miss anything?

I’ve heard it often looks like the “astronaut” phenomenon out of HK back in the 1980s

Yes it’s like every immigrant group that has ever gone to America save the first few waves.

It happened with Taiwan too. Now both HK and Taiwan are rich, what happened? I thought all their rich left?

November 17, 2011 @ 2:53 am | Comment

“It happened with Taiwan too. Now both HK and Taiwan are rich, what happened? I thought all their rich left?”

Ummmm, because they were both colonised by non-Chinese? What was it Liu Xiaobo said?
“(It would take) 300 years of colonialism. In 100 years of colonialism, Hong Kong has changed to what we see today. With China being so big, of course it would require 300 years as a colony for it to be able to transform into how Hong Kong is today. I have my doubts as to whether 300 years would be enough.””

😉 I’ll see myself out……

November 17, 2011 @ 8:46 am | Comment

Which explains why China has higher rates of growth than either. Ignoring the fact that no non-Chinese had any part to play in Taiwan’s development, and that Hong Kong did well in spite of the white parasites, not because of them.

Real British legacies would be Sudan, Burma, India and Iran. All glowing successes.

November 17, 2011 @ 10:27 am | Comment

“CHINA IS EVIL! DESTROY THE CCP! ABOLISH GOVERNMENT IN CHINA! DEMOCRACY IS GREAT! CORPORATISM IS GREAT!”
—gosh, I’m really wiping the floor with you now. Fun times. China isn’t evil. The CCP isn’t necessarily even evil, though their methods aren’t the best. The CCP doesn’t need to be destroyed. They just need to be removed from power; actually, I guess power needs to be removed from them. Of course you need government, in China and elsewhere; just not the CCP iteration thereof. Democracy has its strengths and weaknesses, and Chinese people can do with it as they please. The point is that they should make their own decisions; they don’t need the CCP to make it for them, and they most certainly don’t need an overseas dufus like you to make it for them. Besides, given the looks of things, you’ve got enough problems here. You have really devolved since I enlightened you to the fact that an increasing income gap will eventually result in an increasing wealth gap. You were always an idiot of the most profound order, but now you’ve become a bumbling and muttering version thereof. I guess the suggestion to argue against what people actually say didn’t really “take”, considering that I’ve never said those silly phrases you’ve reduced yourself to arguing against. But as I always say, you do what you gotta do. If you need to engage in imaginary debate, that’s just that much more amusing for me. And you’ve done a great job so far, so thanks for all the laughs. I should really give you a treat, shouldn’t I…

“Yes it’s like every immigrant group that has ever gone to America”
—in my experience, the HK immigrant group was quite unique in having the main bread-winner stay in HK while the rest of the brood moved overseas. But if you’ve got data to support your assertion that “every immigrant group” has done that, be my guest. Just a word of advice: if you’re gonna link something, do yourself a favour and read it first, okay? Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Good luck.

“Now both HK and Taiwan are rich, what happened? I thought all their rich left?”
—I don’t think all their rich left. Why would you think that? However, it should be noted that HK and Taiwan aren’t mainland China. Maybe they don’t have as much reason to leave as they do with PRC, for those who are able to. But there was definitely an exodus from HK in the years leading up to 1997 before it became clear that they would be afforded special status. That special status expires in 2047. It’ll be interesting to see if there’s another spike in emigration as that deadline approaches (assuming of course that the CCP is still in charge).

November 17, 2011 @ 11:57 am | Comment

MerpoFerinCookie
You forgot the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Hong Kong, Shanghai, South Africa……

November 17, 2011 @ 12:52 pm | Comment

Is the Cookie Monster just same person from all this time with different names? That is a new level of insecurity…

Global Times is much worse than Fox really, and I suspect so many people in China would be equal to right wing nutjobs if they judged themselves with American political measures

November 18, 2011 @ 2:10 am | Comment

USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Hong Kong, Shanghai, South Africa……

Empire, resource colony, resource colony, sheep farmers, failure, not a real British legacy, not a real British legacy, train wreck.

lavochkin
That is a new level of insecurity…

Yes, I should name myself something unique like “lavochkin” or “smith” or “bob”. You’re immediately identifiable as a unique person in real life. Everyone in the West is that special, actually.

SK Cheung
Maybe they don’t have as much reason to leave as they do with PRC,

Except Taiwan was under one party rule until the 90s. Yeah, their GDP per capita was around $20,000 (ppp) by the time Lee Tenghui left office.

I forgot that your “US/West does no wrong” brainwashing prevents you from realizing that the US supported right-wing dictatorships in dozens of countries for decades.

Do you shut down when you see the name “Mubarak”?

November 21, 2011 @ 3:16 am | Comment

Democracy has its strengths and weaknesses, and Chinese people can do with it as they please.

The people… the people… the people…the people…the people…the people…the people…the people…the people…the people…the people…the people…the people…

Someone give Hillary Clinton her broken record back, after removing the mystery liquid that has appeared on it after SK Cheung’s stewardship, of course.

November 21, 2011 @ 3:17 am | Comment

“Yes, I should name myself something unique like “lavochkin” or “smith” or “bob”.”
—using a handle is fine. It’s using multiple handles that, among many other things, makes you a loser. And note once again you’re arguing against something that lavochkin didn’t say. He’s not mocking you for calling yourself a stupid name; he’s mocking you because you apparently have the need to go by multiple different stupid names. THAT is what indicates the insecurity, or stupidity, or whatever it is that ails you. I see that the lesson still has not permeated through your rather thick skull…or perhaps there is just not much of note inside there to process the lesson.

“Except Taiwan was under one party rule until the 90s.”
—indeed. The efflux of people will always be based on a combination of those with the financial capability to do so, and those with a reason to bother. Taiwanese people may not have left in large numbers before the 90s because of one and/or the other reason. HK people left before the 90s because the spectre of the CCP gave them good reason to bother. For the next 2 decades, HK people may have less reason to bother. That too may change once they get a better read on what might transpire after 2047. PRC people are leaving now also because the CCP gives them good reason to do so, and more and more of them have the financial capability to do it (remember that income gap and wealth gap yet again).

“I forgot that your “US/West does no wrong” brainwashing prevents you from realizing that the US supported right-wing dictatorships in dozens of countries for decades.”
—LOL. Pray tell, what does that have to do with CHina? It’s OK, take your time…I’ll wait…

“The people”
—yes, it would do you good to repeat that a number of times. You CCP apologist types seem to forget about them. No wonder, really, since the CCP is first and foremost concerned about its own existence, so its mouthpieces of course will be singing the party line until the cows come home. And you’re one reliable mouthpiece. Intelligent? Hell no. Classy? Of course not (as evidenced here yet again). Proper upbringing? Perish the thought. The CCP must find you folks while on their daily rounds looking for gutter oil or something of that nature.

November 21, 2011 @ 6:15 am | Comment

SK Cheung
among many other things, makes you a loser.

More unsubstantiated dreck from the drooling lips of Special Cheungsie. No, using multiple handles shows that the name is irrelevant to the argument – must be hard for lobotomized drones like you to understand such a simple concept.

and those with a reason to bother.

Your gums keep flapping about how democracy is a major reason for immigration. Explain then why poor democracies like Mexico are such a huge source of migrants? Or is democracy not the cure-all you’re claiming it is?

You CCP apologist types seem to forget about them.

Oh yes which is why the CCP does nothing for the people, you know except the whole education, sanitation, infrastructure, economy, technology, science, health thing that they are delivering in historically unprecedented scale.

But hey, if 2-3 million children in India die of diarrhea and malnutrition every year, does Special Cheungsie hear it? Does he care? Nope, he’s a pre-programmed shill of corporatism and world ruled by the West.

November 21, 2011 @ 8:07 am | Comment

“No, using multiple handles shows that the name is irrelevant to the argument – must be hard for lobotomized drones like you to understand such a simple concept.”
—lol. What makes your argument irrelevant isn’t the name that’s affixed to it. Can you guess what makes your arguments irrelevant ( and inane, and stupid, and illogical)? I’ll give you a couple of guesses first. Good luck.

“Explain then why poor democracies like Mexico are such a huge source of migrants? Or is democracy not the cure-all you’re claiming it is?”
— because economic issues would be another “major reason for immigration”. China has a great and growing economy under the Ccp. So gee, I wonder why the rich are leaving? Hmm…I wonder if it’s because of the political system. I wonder I wonder…

Democracy is not a cure-all, nor have I ever claimed that. But you knew that already, since your special talent is arguing against something others didn’t say. Though democracy doesn’t cure all, it certainly helps.

“Oh yes which is why the CCP does nothing for the people, you know except the whole education, sanitation, infrastructure, economy, technology, science, health thing that they are delivering in historically unprecedented scale.”
—true enough, the Ccp certainly does the things it has to do in order to stay in power. But it does what’s best for number one, and if that happens to be good for Chinese people, so be it. Which is precisely ass backwards. I wonder what would happen if the people wanted the Ccp to do something that was good for the average Zhou but not so good for the Ccp? I wonder I wonder…

India certainly has issues, as you types are keen to point out. How that relates to china, I’ve never known. Maybe it’s part of that penchant for comparison that seems to afflict the whole lot of you good folks.

November 21, 2011 @ 2:59 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.