| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
China watchers have long worried about the effects of a severe global recession on 'social stability'. The future is now.
The massive stimulus has to be examined within this context. |
Autocracies have certain advantages in managing economies: they're more fiscally responsible and less susceptible to corporate demands. But the next few years are going to show the weakness of an autocratic system. The ruling party suffers frustration and sometimes outright wrath from the people during an economic downturn. In a democracy, that means the ruling party is voted out of power, perhaps to be returned to power later. In an autocracy or one-party state, it means dissent. Dissent breeds unrest. Unrest begets violence.
My second point: We've already had unrest and violence in some portions of China, even during the 'boom.' Now things could get . . . interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
China watchers have long worried about the effects of a severe global recession on 'social stability'. The future is now.
The massive stimulus has to be examined within this context. |
Autocracies have certain advantages in managing economies: they're more fiscally responsible and less susceptible to corporate demands. But the next few years are going to show the weakness of an autocratic system. The ruling party suffers frustration and sometimes outright wrath from the people during an economic downturn. In a democracy, that means the ruling party is voted out of power, perhaps to be returned to power later. In an autocracy or one-party state, it means dissent. Dissent breeds unrest. Unrest begets violence.
My second point: We've already had unrest and violence in some portions of China, even during the 'boom.' Now things could get . . . interesting. |
Interesting is right. I'm sure the government will direct internal anger at an external source, be it Taiwan, Japan or Uncle Sam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I also wonder what political instability in China would mean for NK. The situation could get very ugly, what with NK's reliance on China and KJI's seemingly tenuous hold on power.
SK may be faced with a real shit-storm of falling exports, no FDI, a crap currency and a nightmare on its northern border.
Lovely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes. I do not envy the ROK's situation right now. Though I doubt a major crises in DPRK is near. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
China watchers have long worried about the effects of a severe global recession on 'social stability'. The future is now.
The massive stimulus has to be examined within this context. |
Autocracies have certain advantages in managing economies: they're more fiscally responsible and less susceptible to corporate demands. But the next few years are going to show the weakness of an autocratic system. The ruling party suffers frustration and sometimes outright wrath from the people during an economic downturn. In a democracy, that means the ruling party is voted out of power, perhaps to be returned to power later. In an autocracy or one-party state, it means dissent. Dissent breeds unrest. Unrest begets violence.
My second point: We've already had unrest and violence in some portions of China, even during the 'boom.' Now things could get . . . interesting. |
Interesting is right. I'm sure the government will direct internal anger at an external source, be it Taiwan, Japan or Uncle Sam. |
If it helps with the disorder, perhaps they should point blame. They should direct it at the U.S., since:
a) the U.S. is most to blame
b) it would be reasonable and justified for China to blame the U.S. superpower harshly without carrying any of its threats into action |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why do you think the US is to blame? I think one thing we have learned in the past few months is that the US is in significantly better shape than European or Asian economies.
Actually, this is a big topic. I started a new thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigfeet
Joined: 29 May 2008
Location: Grrrrr.....
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No problem. All China has to do is hire more military (fiscal stimulus) and use them to bash in the heads of dissenters (solve population problem). Kill two birds with one stone!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| VanIslander wrote: |
what a bad lede:
| Quote: |
| CHANG�AN, China � Wang Denggui, father of three, arrived more than a year ago in the palm-lined streets of this southern town with a single goal: toil in a factory to save for his children�s school tuition. |
... what about China's One Child Policy?
Can't even get into the story because of a side issue unaddressed by some reporter oblivious to readers' expectations and frame of reference |
Chinese One Child Policy does not normally apply to those in the country-side.
The best source I could find for that was this NYTimes article.
| Quote: |
| Most urban couples are limited to a single child, while farmers are often allowed to have two. |
|
and yet he has three  what a sympathetic personalizing lede! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
