Translation
or People Don't Count Here, Either
by James L. Secor
This little essay is a paragraph by paragraph analysis of "China's economy surges on" appearing on mwcnews 25 Jan 07." Hmm. . .a wire download? What is it we are wired for, I wonder. . .
China's economy grew at 10.7 per cent in 2006, but risks being strained by over-investment and excessive dependence on exports, a leading economic official has said. -- A leading economic official would say, of course: it's his job to say. But what does this mean?
One meaning is that the politicians and the businessmen are doing quite well, thank you, while beggars (and fake beggars) line the streets even of major cities and most of the people kind of get along in houses Americans see as historic items ( hu tong) and all but farmers starve. These houses are older with roofs in need of repair, ceilings dropping debris and bugs on its inhabitants, dirt-encrusted concrete/stone/brick floors, mal-fitting windows and doors, electricity that is an after-thought, A/C is absent, heating is by one coke-burning stove and there are no bathrooms. I know. I lived in one for an entire summer.
I pissed in a bucket and emptied it in the common drain outside the house; I shit in bags and tossed them in the garbage; I walked ¼ mile to the nearest public shower. It is a horror, an eye-opener and a sad proof of the 10.7% growth in economic conditions because this is common housing fare to most of the 1.3 billion Chinese. So I ask. . .what does 10.7% economic growth mean? I answer. . .it has no meaning except for the rich and powerful; the people who make up the nation, have no idea of these walloping pasture patty riches that proffer results to only a few. Thus, is economic growth a proper, even good, indicator of a country's wealth and development and humanity?
The latest data released on Thursday was China's highest annual growth rate in 11 years and gave Asia's second largest economy its fourth straight year of double-digit growth. -- Who or what grew? Certainly not the betterment of the vast majority of the populace. It must be admitted, though, that the people of China are aware of this discrepancy between reality and delusion, as many Americans are not. If this is the highest annual growth rate in the past 11 years, I wonder why it is that in my four years here I've seen no sign of it--except as reported by economic officials reporting data to State run newspapers and international news agencies. That is, it's all PR, putting on a good face in order to draw more international business, i.e. economic growth.
Xie Fuzhan, commissioner of the National Bureau of Statistics, said the figures showed the economy continued to face several "outstanding problems", particularly a failure to boost consumer spending. -- This is quite understandable as the increase in economic good does not include increases in wages or social programs or. . . . Whyever is consumer spending important when most of the population do window shopping only, if they have the time, for they are more focused on existing from day to day. The answer is obvious: if people don't buy, the economy don't grow none and the rich don't get richer. Basic math, basic algebra; calculus will make it look complicated and intellectual, that is, beyond the ken of the average man and therefore, because it is higher mathematics, right.
He said China faced an "irrational relationship between investment and consumption". -- Sometimes truth will out. But the underlying assumption here is askew and based on the operative word "irrational." Why is this difference between investment and consumption irrational? Because, with a bunch of damned poor people not spending their hard earned money the rich robber barons don't look good. If I can't keep up face, you must keep up my face. Cultural laws are great. They are loaded with guilt. It's thus becomes "against the law" to embarrass another. So, buy you poor bastards! And if you can't, get thee to a back street where the foreigners will not see thee because they don't like going down narrow dirty streets.
In 2006, Xie said, investment in real estate and other assets surged, while consumer spending grew far more slowly. -- True. True. So the Communists--now only so in name--are placing worth on the ownership of property.
This is right and proper in a nation where the farmer's property reverts to the government upon the farmer's death if there are no family members to "inherit." Fewer and fewer want to farm--except for the gentleman farmers, a kind of throwback to Qing, Ming and Song Dynasty social organization. How cool was this (to use a common young person's slang)? Well, this, along with the inherent corruption, led to one of the four major classics of Chinese literature, The Outlaws of the Marsh, a stinging satire of the selfishness, bribery and corruption that marked these ages of common man repression and abuse. It, in part, brought about the "great Chinese revolution" as John King Fairbank calls it, resulting in the rise of Communism. Perhaps Katherine Anne Porter was right when she noted that there is no such thing as a good government.
According to the bureau's statistics fixed asset investment rose 24 per cent for 2006, while retail sales, a main gauge of consumer spending and sentiment, increased 13.7 per cent. -- Buy! Buy! Buy! I would agree that retail sales is a gauge of consumer spending but sentiment? I should think the disparity in investment and sales (spending) is a far more telling indicator of sentiment.
The data suggests government efforts to cool off an investment boom and reduce China's reliance on exports by boosting domestic consumption still have a long way to go. -- What data? Where is it? It's not here, in this article, in this reporter's reporting of the high economic authority Xie Fuzhan, who didn't supply it. Perhaps "the data" is as ubiquitous and amorphous and ill-defined as "they." People have an irrational belief in the unassailable truth of "the data" that is kin to the faith of a religious fanatic. It only does us good to question these labels and concepts.
Worried that runaway spending could spark inflation or a debt crisis, the central government has raised interest rates twice since April, repeatedly tightened bank credit and imposed restrictions on investment in real estate, vehicle factories and other projects. -- Woah, woah! Hold on here. "Runaway spending"? What runaway spending?
The problem, already well-articulated and supported with statistics, is that people are not spending. Is that why you raise interest rates? To get people to spend? I've got a bank account; I've seen no increase in my take from the bank's investment of my money for its profit.
Translation
If you tighten bank credit and restrict investment you are definitely cutting down on spending but as the spending is already at an unacceptably low level--according to government economic experts--why is this being done? Will Xie come out next year or the year after and gloat that these programs have worked and have put the skids to runaway spending? 
Wowzer! How utterly like. . .y'know, Skinner cheated on his rat experiments, too, starving them before he put them in his maze. All of this, though, flies in the face of the opening up of foreign banks doing business and the increase in foreign investment, especially in the automotive sector of economic growth standard measuring devices. I don't think anyone read this article with an eye to thinking, for there are no comments. Gosh--it all sounds good! Yup, yup, yup. And then we're going to take you to the cleaners.
It has also cracked down on wasteful investments, naming and shaming local officials it says have failed to comply with orders to tighten up planning procedures and observe tougher environmental protection criteria. -- You see. . .the way it works in China is you break the legs of the little guys, calling it a blow against corruption, and leave the big corrupters and blunderers and greed-driven free to continue their non-compliance.
Why? Because it's good for business. It seems to me that tougher environmental protection criteria would be less selling of cars, especially SUVs to the rich and powerful. Shanghai has shut off its downtown to bicycles, thus hamstringing the workers, though it does increase spending (on environmentally destructive transportation); Beijing has tightened restrictions on auto emissions for the downtown, leaving the old non-restrictive polluting for the suburbs and countryside--who cares if the poor and working classes sicken and die?
As long as the bigwigs continue to do well. After all, there is an almost bottomless pit of replacement resources (people) who will take any employment at any below subsistence pay. So, why worry? Who said that? Alfred E. Newman? What was the name of his magazine?
Unveiling the 2006 data at a press conference in Beijing, Xie emphasised that while there were risks he did not believe the economy was yet in a state of overheating. -- Wow! A press conference. A meeting of selected reporters and news agencies who can be relied upon to report what they are told, no questions asked. Like the "agency" reporting the article I'm quoting. What, may I ask, is meant by an economy "overheating"? By juxtaposition, this would imply runaway spending and, therefore, is another truism: there is no possibility of either runaway spending or overheating. Even so, this is an intricately confusing statement.
Looking ahead he said he expected the economy to continue "steady and comparatively fast development" in 2007. -- Rein in those horses, Jim Hatfield! Save the runaway stage coach, John Wayne. What "steady and comparatively fast development"?
A 10.7% jump is steady development? And, again, we are left to ask where this development is taking place, for it's not in the everyday lives of the everyday people of China. So, whose "economic development" once again becomes the overriding unasked question.
Nonetheless, Xie said, government efforts to boost consumer spending were "still not seeing significant results". -- Damn those runaway steeds! How can restrictions on spending boost consumer spending? And why is consumer spending so terribly important? Is China Little America? Contrariness is always good: it confuses and confounds and puts an immediate end to embarrassing questions from people who know better than to ask in the first place.
"We're finding it hard to meet the target of changing our economic structure." -- Yeah. Right. 10.7% increase in economic growth is a sure sign of difficulty. What is difficult, however, is to get Chinese to spend rather than save. Since the banks take the money of the people and invest it in their own profiteering way, giving back a spit in the ocean to the people who have made their richness possible, one wonders why the people would be encouraged to spend. Wouldn't that mean less money for the banks to make a killing from? More confusion. . .when you think about it. . .if you think about it. . .
Other problems, he said, included a growing imbalance of payments and excess liquidity in the banking system. -- Eh? Too much money in the banking system? Does that mean too many people are saving money or the banks are making opprobrious profits? Is the "imbalance of payments" a dig at the US debt?
China's global trade surplus – the measure of money going into the country minus money going out, jumped by a record 74 per cent in 2006 to $177.5 bn. -- The only problem here is in punctuation. Uhh. . .wait a minute. Is this another dig at the US debt? Most of that $177.5 billion is owed by the US. Is this a veiled request for payment of the debt?
If China's economy continues to keep growing at the same pace it could leapfrog Germany by 2008, becoming the world's third largest economy after the US and Japan. -- Once again one wonders what in fact a "growing economy" measures and, therefore, means when the greater part of the country is struggling to survive. And I ask you. . .how can the US have "a growing economy" when its businesses are relocating to foreign countries and it owes money?
That is, the US is in debt. That is, the US has no money. How can you be growing when you ain't got nuttin' to grow on? Well, you know how the song goes, "I got plenty o' nothin' and nothin's plenty for me." China ain't got nothin', neither, but US IOU's.
So, where does this leave us? Oh, yes. . .what does this 10.7% economic growth really mean? Is life really only and all about economics? Isn't there more to life than someone making money and more money? And why is it only a few manage to do this? No. Wrong question. Why is it that only the few who manage to do this trample on those who can't or don't and consider them, these others (often called people), are expendable items (resources)? Yes. That's the right question.
In this light, then, economic growth is a measure of a country's Robbie Burns' man's inhumanity to man.
Jimsecor is a freelance writer who has travelled extensively overseas, especially Japan and China. He has published in all genre and produced several plays over the years and has taught theatre, writing and literature.
Quote this article on your site | Views: 3251Comments (11) |  |
A more rigorous argument might be formated using some statistical mechanics, but it should not be difficult to see, to have every single Chinese living by middle class standard will require a lot higher than 10% growth, or a very long time.
Comparison with India is difficult as both countries basic approach towards the economy is different. China, is mostly owned and controlled by the government and the Chinese Army which is not at all the case with India and thus all the measures in China are taken to safe guard the welfare of both the institutions.
Now it has been mentioned, that China has only had a limited time to develop its industries and economy. It should not be overlooked that James experiences of living in China are the truth without doubt . It seems to me that the attitude of the Chinese Government is similar to the English mill owners during the industrial revolution, people had to work very long hours, living and working like slaves in filthy conditions, mum dad and the kids. The cottage industries collapsed, crystal clear waters and streams, where once ran salmon trout and even sturgeon, became stinking polluted waterways,
the air became foul.
It appears that mankind does not learn from history, Robbie observed it well, 'man's inhumanity to man', it is a part of what we are as humans, until we rise above this base part of being human there will always be misery .
To quote the beloved crofters son : ... That Sense and Worth, o'er the earth, Shall bear the gree(prize) an' a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that.
It's coming yet for a' that , That man to man , the world o'er , Shall brithers be far a' that.
WE can live in hope. Mind you the brotherhood of man would be some peoples worst nightmare, for all that.
Mike
Last year, KFC grossed as much in China as the USA. That's Kentucky Fried Chicken being sold out in China. It's also the number overseas market for GM, Caterpillar and a list of other US companies.
By any measures, the lives of the common Chinese is improving. Nothing is a better indicator than consumption numbers from year to year.
There's a long way to go in China it is still desperately poor but you can't sit there and ignore the numbers that show massive growth in things being bought.
The numbers are historic in nature. China has passed in the US in consuming (not just exporting) refrigerators, color televisions, meat and just about anything else you could name.
Again this is from a nation that just 30 years ago was completely isolated and consumed as little on average as sub-Saharan Africa.
Without those mill owners and the Industrial Revolution, England would be as dirt poor as China is today.
Every developed nation today -- EVERY single one of them -- did what it can to get rich first and then deal with the inequities and problems once they had the money.
You can't deal with problems when you are a poor peasant living hand to mouth. We see that in Africa. China was exactly like Africa just 20 years ago. Much of its rural areas are still like Africa today so people are rushing to the mills and factories that you say are "inhuman." Sorry, starvation is far more inhuman.
The reason people work those horrendous hours in the mills (whether in Victorian England or modern day China) is the mills are infinitely better than the grinding poverty of the farm.
What I have seen of Chinas wealth at this time, it is not universal throughout the population, the rich get richer the poor get poorer.(yes I know there is a middle bunch).
As for dealing with the inequities caused by industrialization, well it took two world wars, a Bolshevik uprising, massive industrial unrest, this barely scratches the surface.
The point is why does China have to blindly follow Europe\'s callous ways.
As for the consumption of KFC, Lord help them, I prefer food myself.
As for Africa, that\'s got everything to do with the mess left behind by the colonialist.
There is nothing wrong with industrial progress,
but the master slave mentality, could and most likely will bring the whole house of cards down. It does not have to be like that, i.e. the new feudalism. That was what was exercised during that period in British history.
What you seem to be implying is it\'s OK to exploit people who have no recourse, I believe that is a mill owner mentality.
As a youth I worked part time on a mixed arable farm in North East Scotland, howked tatties, cleaned the byre, painted roosting polls, worked the sheep. Yes it was bloody cold hard work, but the whole farm family was well fed and they were o\'er happy folk. And they looked after me fine wheel.
Mike
China is still poor as hell so why do you expect wealth to be "uniform"? The fact that so much refrigerators, automobiles and fried chicken is sold in China today compared to the non-existent amount sold 10 years ago means that the population is improving. You can't buy volume in the way that China is consuming unless a wide swath of the population is improving. A millionaire won't buy 30000 refrigerators or cell phones. It takes millions of people with growing income to consume the way that China is doing today.
"As for the consumption of KFC, Lord help them, I prefer food myself. "
The question was not whether KFC is proper food. The question was that a population where life of the common folk is not improving would not support such profits by KFC. The mine owners don't eat at KFC and the peasants can't afford it. You need a growing working class with disposal income to allow KFC to grow year on year in China so that it now grosses as much there as the US.
"but the whole farm family was well fed and they were o\'er happy folk."
You take one farm family in an industrialized country like England where they are not competing against a half billion other subsistent farmers on half-acre plots of land and extrapolate happy lives as for peasants? .
Stop living in your ivory tower. If farm life was so "happy" then no one in China would leave the farm and subject themselves to "slavery."
I'm sure there are happy farmers in China as well. Calories intake in China has shot up to astronomical levels. (So has problems in obesity, diabetes and heart disease.) Again this indicates massive consumption by a large segment of the working population.
Again, China is still poor as hell but it is far better off than before the factories and "mill owners." And unlike before, the consumption levels go up every year meaning more and more people are gaining surplus income.
Slavery? Hmm.
I\'m sure there are happy farmers in China as well. Calories intake in China has shot up to astronomical levels. (So has problems in obesity, diabetes and heart disease.) Again this indicates massive consumption by a large segment of the working population.
Is the sign of wealth degenerate illness?
I do believe that much farm land in China has been swallowed up by hydro schemes, and mining also development.
The argument is not whether China should develop as a nation, but how it does.
But the truth is I suppose the people of power are people that\'s it, therefore full of the usual greed and lust for power and control. Therefore history of Europe will be lost to them.
I can only say that I am glad that I did not have to work in slave conditions, I feel for all those past and present that did.
You see just because this approach was always done in the past does not make it right.
Therefore bad outcomes will come from China\'s approach, as it has always has in the past.
Also the fact that Chinas industrial workers work in slave condition,(slavery as you put it), has slowly and insidiously impacted on the western manufacturing industries.
Is the answer to reintroduce slavery to the West.
And I don\'t think James Secor dwells in an ivory tower no more than I.
How bad can the outcome be when the European nations are the richest ones on earth by following that?
What are you suggesting? That China's peasants stay as subsistence farmers rather than launching their descendants on the same path as the UK or United States that ultimately leads to a wealthier future?
"Slavery" is a term that you use for "mill" work. No man will subject himself to slavery if he is in a better condition. The fact is the life of the farmer is worse slavery than the factory which is why peasants leave the farmland for the factory.
Seriously, there is nothing but musing from an ivory tower when you suggest that people forgo industrialization and stay dirt poor and starving on the farm.
A nation that has no money can't solve any problem. There are not a lot of happy peasants in Africa. There never were. Even before the white man came. There wasn't a lot of a happy people among the serfs of feudal Europe before industrialization came.
I've been to China multiple times. I saw the grinding poverty of the place in the early 1980s. I see it today. And I can tell you that people are better off a thousand fold. Back then a whole village would have one phone. Now everyone carries a cell.
Back then, food itself was scarce. Today the markets are full. China can thank the factories and mills for that.
I too have travelled the world and seen terrible things.
But you havent been understanding my line.
How many lives did progress cost
in Europe. And World Wide.
Have a good dain.
Mike
|
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4
Tags: James Secor China China Economy