Hacked By AdGhosT & Tayeb TN & bo hmid

 

 

 

 

 

close your eyes and listen Elfen Lied <3

Greets~:AdGhosT-- adel pro tn- Anonback Tnx - A_Ghacker - xvirus -Malousi Foryn - MaxKiller - Nexamos

Hacked By AdGhosT

Hacked By AdGhosT & Tayeb TN & bo hmid

 

 

 

 

 

close your eyes and listen Elfen Lied <3

Greets~:AdGhosT-- adel pro tn- Anonback Tnx - A_Ghacker - xvirus -Malousi Foryn - MaxKiller - Nexamos


Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/richardp/public_html/wp-content/wp-cache-config.php:77) in /home/richardp/public_html/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: New thread, links, etc. http://www.pekingduck.org/2012/12/new-thread-6/ A peculiar hybrid of personal journal, dilettantish punditry, pseudo-philosophy and much more, from an Accidental Expat who has made his way from Hong Kong to Beijing to Taipei and finally back to Beijing for reasons that are still not entirely clear to him... Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:34:31 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.2 By: Richard http://www.pekingduck.org/2012/12/new-thread-6/comment-page-6/#comment-190073 Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:13:10 +0000 http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=11193#comment-190073 This thread has gone on long enough. I’ll open another one in a day or so.

]]>
By: S. K. Cheung http://www.pekingduck.org/2012/12/new-thread-6/comment-page-6/#comment-190069 Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:53:14 +0000 http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=11193#comment-190069 Remind me, how do those things require the CCP? How would the rule of law, freedom of speech, and information freedom within CHina, curtail any of those activities? How would Chinese people screw those things up but for the paternalism of the CCP? This I would love to hear.

]]>
By: zhuubaajie http://www.pekingduck.org/2012/12/new-thread-6/comment-page-6/#comment-190065 Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:46:24 +0000 http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=11193#comment-190065 Er, mumble mumble – Curl, I’d respond if I know what you are talking about.

China’s exports are at a crossover stage. Sales by China to 1st world nations is now less than that to the rest of the world. And that trend will continue. Beijing is doing a great job of developing the economies of the developing nations, so in turn they can buy more Made in China. China is the nation that is best reaping the benefits of globalization. It’s well priced Made in China goods are most suitable for the close to 5 billion people of the developing world.

So I totally disagree with the assessment that China’s exports is going to shrink.

In the next two decades, the mix of technology and IP content is going to change. You will see many more China products protected by IP (Copyrights, design registrations, etc.), and you will see new business/legal combinations such as massive IP portfolios, which translate to higher profits.

]]>
By: curl of the burl http://www.pekingduck.org/2012/12/new-thread-6/comment-page-6/#comment-190057 Tue, 11 Dec 2012 03:42:09 +0000 http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=11193#comment-190057 Well, unfortunately, the Chinese leaders have no intention of using the model for much longer for good reason.

You’ve contradicted yourself 3 times in one post.

1. Pardon me if I trust 90% of the world’s financial experts and the head CCP leaders (that you spought are always right) over you.

2. You are the one always telling us you can’t compare ‘western’ economies with the Chinese economy and here you are saying the complete opposite.

If you’re going to compare China’s economy, compare it to a country that is or was at a similar stage of development.

3. You just said I shouldn’t compare Japan for that exact reason. Although I think it was at a similar stage of development. America, obviously not.

You’re either playing devil’s advocate or you lack understanding/intelligence.

FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

]]>
By: Zhuubaajie http://www.pekingduck.org/2012/12/new-thread-6/comment-page-6/#comment-190052 Tue, 11 Dec 2012 02:37:56 +0000 http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=11193#comment-190052 @curl 287

China is the No. 2 economy, America is No. 1. You cannot talk about what is good for China without comparisons.

China is very much different from Japan. The level of development is still low. In a globalized world it means that China still enjoys tremendous comparative advantages in costs. Infrastructure building for example – Chinese teams can offer (a) engineering cost at 30% lowe; and (b) available financing. These are not cut rate financing, but LIBOR plus 3 or 4%, rather profitable but still competitive.

The China price model is far from exhausted. It is just getting started, as Chinese exports to the entire world (don’t just think of the First World) ramps up. China is very well placed to take full advantage of the worldwide economic recovery. It would not surprise if the Chinese economy goes back to 10% growth in a couple of years.

]]>
By: curl of the burl http://www.pekingduck.org/2012/12/new-thread-6/comment-page-6/#comment-190048 Tue, 11 Dec 2012 02:08:46 +0000 http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=11193#comment-190048 @zhubaajie 269

Actually, HEAPS of countries have gotten to this level of development. Brazil, South Korea, Japan, etc. Stats mean nothing. China has the largest population in the world at a developing economic stage with massive investment model to supercharge it hence they have large hard commodity output. But it’s going to crash.

http://english.caixin.com/2012-08-13/100423159.html

http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/16/by-2015-hard-commodity-prices-will-have-collapsed/

The amount of scientific articles doesn’t really doesn’t allude to anything especially when they’ve done the top down approach of ordering faculties to write/plagiarise certain quotas by a certain date. Science is certainly about quality not quantity. America is still the most innovative country in the world has been for quite a long time for a reason. I’m not American but I can respect when a country is great at something and learn from them.

http://thisischinablog.com/2012/10/31/kai-fu-gets-it/

http://concordnewsradio.com/?p=908

BTW China’s economic rise has been impressive but not miraculous. It has been explained and examined many times over. Actually Japan did a very similar thing only they didn’t have any where near the amount of overinvestment imbalance that China has and look at it now. Stagnant economy. debt is 200% of GDP.

Why? Because of overinvestment of infrastructure and lack of political will to break up the big companies and slow down the real estate bubble among the many reasons. The government couldn’t make the hard choices needed to rebalance the economy so they got the lost decade. Years and years and years of stagnant growth.

Sound familiar? That’s because it is. People say Japan was a different kettle of fish. That’s right. When Japan hit this equivalent level of breakneck GDP growth, they had social security, one of the best education systems, extremely developed rule of law and very well developed technology and innovation sector at this level in their development (and they didn’t have to shit on human rights to get there!). China vastly lacks in these sectors in comparison.

China has flogged the current economic investment model to death. Chinese and foreign leaders and experts are pretty unanimous on that. Even the most bullish of China experts are now admitting their are some serious roadblocks ahead. Xi Jin Ping, Wen Jiao Bao and Hu Jin Tao have all reiterated this. Turning it into action?

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2012/11/13/role-of-soes-in-china-s-future/eihr

http://english.caixin.com/2012-08-13/100423159.html

http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/27/when-the-growth-model-changes-abandon-the-correlations/

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2012/11/08/corruption-and-reform-in-china/eigx

If the government in China doesn’t have the clout to overcome the vested interests that have gained so much from the current economic investment model, then China is in for Japan in the 90’s times 3. I hope they do. With the level of corruption atm I am cautiously optimistic.

Again, if the CCP can overcome corruption and do it, great. Singapore did it with one party so it’s possible. I’d like it see it happen. It’s in every country’s best interest.

BTW. This is called the Peking Duck, hence I am writing about China. If it was called the Washington Turkey, I’d write about America. But I don’t live in America and it doesn’t interest me a whole lot. I lived in China for ten years, so I have an interest in it’s development. I’m not writing about the U.S.A. so please don’t respond in reference to it.

]]>
By: Zhuubaajie http://www.pekingduck.org/2012/12/new-thread-6/comment-page-6/#comment-190047 Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:59:51 +0000 http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=11193#comment-190047 @jxie 285

Running economies is definitely not comparable to gambling (blckjack, craps, etc.). Historically, there is no evidence that nations and peoples take random turns at doing well. If economies do well, it is because someone planned, and those plans worked. Even in a “free market” economy, there has to be enabling infrastructure buildup that does not come about without careful planning and expert execution of such plans.

There is nothing magical about the Chicom plans. Unlike this opaque phenomenon known as the “free market” (where different players have different access to info), the Chicom plans for the Chinese economy is open for comments.

]]>
By: jxie http://www.pekingduck.org/2012/12/new-thread-6/comment-page-6/#comment-190045 Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:57:24 +0000 http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=11193#comment-190045 @WKL 283. First Pew is a very competent pollster by the other polls they have done. For any pollsters worth their beans, if they over-poll a subset of the population and there is a traceable bias between those within and without the subset, the pollster has to adjust for the polling bias — this is Polling 101 that may involve a bit math Sheldon Cooper learned at age 8 but many have never learned in their lives. Personally at least in the last decade or so, I’ve found the rural residents are more satisfied than the urbanites. One thing stands out for the Hu/Wen era — good or bad it’s up to you — it’s their ability to increase the tax base (at this point for an apple-to-apple comparison, already larger than the US federal tax base), and distribute the wealth to places like health insurance, rural pension, etc. Urbanites on the other hand have their gripes such as rising housing price.

In Pew’s data, not all developing nations are happy, e.g. Kenya at 19% (2011), Lebanon at 11% (2011), Pakistan at 12% (2012). My prediction is that the post-Arab Spring “sugar high” experienced by Egypt will wear off, and they will make a new low soon — regardless nominally they are a democracy or not, at least a democracy endorsed by a few Western governments. Their fundamental problem is the lack of proper education among the overly populated young age groups.

It’ll be a very lengthy discussion on why/how some are doing well and some aren’t. For starter, many call China an authoritarian, a Leninist, or even a dictatorship (with a dictatorial retirement pension plan apparently), I would think calling it a resurrected and reformed Confucian society might be more accurate nowadays. What it means is, even if Egypt after the “sugar high”, wants to emulate China — it may not be able to!

Anyway, if something works, why mess with it? At a blackjack table, if something appears to be “working”, it may be mathematically a bad play. But do we have that type of scientific certainty in political science and economics? Maybe all theories we know now will be laughed at a couple of generations later — heck, just think about what people held as truths before the global financial meltdown and the pain they had gone through when the system was shaken to its core. I can’t help but think maybe most of the early 21st century Western democracies are reserve-mortgaging their futures now and they simply can’t stop it? — and you won’t know the endgame ’til everything is reserve-mortgaged… But I don’t know, I am just thinking out-loud.

A lot of what’s discussed here reminds me of the option backdating “scandal” at Apple when Jobs was still alive. Some aggressive prosecutors who sometimes make their bone by slaying the “big guns” floated the idea that they might go after Jobs, to pretentiously protect the shareholder interest. Well, at this very moment, going after the Chinese system that is producing fabulous results, is kind of like that.

]]>
By: S.K. Cheung http://www.pekingduck.org/2012/12/new-thread-6/comment-page-6/#comment-190042 Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:31:11 +0000 http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=11193#comment-190042 “Those in power WILL trample the rights of the plebeians”
—if there is no mechanism to check that power. Which is precisely the point of separation of powers, and precisely what’s missing under the CCP. Of course, in the CCP’s case, it’s the confluence of lack of power separation, lack of rule of law, and lack of constitutional protections (did I forget anything?).

American foreign policy is not a weakness of her democracy. And I have every intention of watching ZDT, which is garnering much Oscar buzz. And I’ve been a fan of Bigelow since Hurt Locker, and of course I’m a fan of Jessica Chastain.

I would let Chinese people decide what works best for them. And I’d let them decide how best to select their leaders, rather than just letting the CCP do it behind closed and corrupt doors. I mean, look at you. You love the CCP, just not enough to be under them. How noble.

]]>
By: Wukailong http://www.pekingduck.org/2012/12/new-thread-6/comment-page-6/#comment-190038 Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:05:53 +0000 http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=11193#comment-190038 @Richard (241): Why is the PEW survey “infamous”? The paper you quote doesn’t deny its validity but puts it into perspective in comparison with other similar surveys. Having said that, the Easterlin paper provides much needed discussion on this subject and makes several good points:

“The surveys conducted to date‡ have tended to be disproportionately urban (e.g., the Pew and Asiabarometer surveys). Economic growth was disproportionately urban during this period, with urban incomes rising markedly relative to rural incomes (10– 12). Thus, even though the life satisfaction data have an urban bias during this period, economic growth does as well, and comparing the two factors seems reasonable.”

“It would be a mistake to conclude from the life satisfaction experience of China, and the transition countries more generally, that a return to socialism and the gross inefficiencies of central planning would be beneficial. However, our data suggest an important policy lesson, that jobs and job and income security, together with a social safety net, are of critical importance to life satisfaction.”

Actually, the PEW site contains a lot of information, not just on China, and one thing I noted before when checking it out was that optimism in general tended to be much higher in developing countries. It might just be human nature; things are visibly changing and people in these countries have something to look forward to, whereas the developed countries are facing an economic slump and the future looks very uncertain. Change is more important than current level of well-being, which also reminds me of the results from other investigations that says that below a certain level, material increase actually makes you happier. When you get above that, you need other changes.

I don’t have more time right now so the rest will be short, but I think this constant focus on growth rates is misguided. Different talent is needed for different stages – Mao could create the PRC, but he couldn’t rule the country very well. Deng could create the current system and transform the current system, but his ideas won’t necessarily be able to lead to higher-quality growth. Countries grow at high levels when they are poor, not when they’re approaching developed status. Whether China can get past the current stage and avoid middle-income stagnation is the one million dollar question that is up to Xi and his colleagues.

]]>