Recently I was speaking to a top US leader who also asked this question. I asked him: “What is democracy?” He said, “One man, one vote.” But, where does one man, one vote lead in a society where the middle class is still relatively small compared to so many poor people? In Venezuela, it produced Chavez.From my very limited knowledge about China's government, I'm not a big supporter. What caught me about this answer was his public expression of respect for the entrepreneur and the market economy. The founders of the United States shared similar fears of a democracy, which is why they were founded as a Republic. It was refreshing to read this answer considering the market economy and the entrepreneur are two entities that are being relentlessly attacked here in the west.
China already experimented with mass democracy during the Cultural Revolution, and it was a catastrophe. Do we want some young Red Guard standing on the table today, harassing entrepreneurs and trying to turn back the market economy?
His perspective on where the US failed:
The real problem for the American economy, in my view, resulted from (former Federal Reserve Chairman) Alan Greenspan reducing the interest rate too much back in 2002. When money is too easy, it is too easy for people to be irresponsible: They get in trouble by borrowing more than they can afford. As China tries to stimulate its own economy, making money too cheap would be a mistake there as well.On losing trade with the US:
Despite what many think, less than 3 percent of China’s annual GDP growth comes from the trade surplus with the US. The rest comes from investment and domestic consumption. So, even if China loses 2 percent of its GDP growth from exports falling to the US, we are still in decent shape.
12 comments:
Refreshing that a authoritarian mayor agrees with slave holders? LOL.
I wonder if that mayor is for a republic? I would say not, because republics=democracy. Only idiots can't see this fact.
I love it when retards automatically take state authority as correct! South Korea has basically accepted Western democracy, but there is are no communists cadets, red armies, or cultural revolutions at the gates! Instead, there is a florishing economy with relatively high wages.
When Korea had a recession in 1998 they let bad business fail. They'd be wise to do the same thing again. Those that I listen to often cite Korea's 98 recession as a current example of a more free-market approach to recessions.
"When Korea had a recession in 1998 they let bad business fail."
Really? I was quite sure that most of the big companies were involved. I think it is better to say that they let the worst fail and split the rest.
"When Korea had a recession in 1998 they let bad business fail. They'd be wise to do the same thing again. Those that I listen to often cite Korea's 98 recession as a current example of a more free-market approach to recession"
Hey, I'm so glad you answered my counter off-topic. Makes you look illogical... :)
"In 1994, noted economist Paul Krugman published an article attacking the idea of an "Asian economic miracle".[4] He argued that East Asia's economic growth had historically been the result of capital investment, leading to growth in productivity. However, total factor productivity had increased only marginally or not at all. Krugman argued that only growth in total factor productivity, and not capital investment, could lead to long-term prosperity. Krugman's views would be seen by many as prescient after the financial crisis had become full-blown[neutrality disputed], though he himself stated that he had not predicted the crisis nor foreseen its depth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_financial_crisis
Productivity, as in high wages and high wages in factory production. Not slave wages in China.
"Macroeconomic fundamentals in South Korea were good but the banking sector was burdened with non-performing loans as its large corporations were funding aggressive expansions. During that time, there was a haste to build great conglomerates to compete on the world stage. Many businesses ultimately failed to ensure returns and profitability. The Korean conglomerates, more or less completely controlled by the government, simply absorbed more and more capital investment. Eventually, excess debt led to major failures and takeovers. For example, in July 1997, South Korea's third-largest car maker, Kia Motors, asked for emergency loans"
What? Is that a contradiction!
"Indeed, it resumed its role as the world's fastest-growing economy -- since 1960, per capita GDP has grown from $80 in nominal terms to more than $21,000 as of 2007. However, like the chaebol, South Korea's government did not escape unscathed. Its national debt-to-GDP ratio more than doubled (app. 13% to 30%) as a result of the crisis."
Why so much debt! Oh yeah, because they were doing exactly the same thing the U.S. is doing now.
Krugman is an idiot.
"What? Is that a contradiction!"
I don't follow.
As for Kia, just as an example, it was sold off in the private sector to Hyundai. If Hyundai's bid was not accepted, Kia would have been be liquidated (essentially bankrupt) and not bailed out by the Korean government.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_company_file/196667.stm
"Kia would have been be liquidated (essentially bankrupt) and not bailed out by the Korean government."
Are those your magical powers speaking again? Yes?
Anyway, it's a false comparison. Too many American companies have moved to China to allow what is left to fail. Korea, in 1997, and in 2008, has a nationalist creed underlying its national production. Sure, some factories have moved to China and Mexico, but no where near the number moved from the U.S. and usually only because it is a cheaper proximity.
"Are those your magical powers speaking again? Yes?"
What magical powers? Being right?
"
What magical powers? Being right?"
Magical powers as in knowing what would have happened if they were not bought out.
"Magical powers as in knowing what would have happened if they were not bought out."
No, I just read the article I cited which stated the intention.
"No, I just read the article I cited which stated the intention."
Yes, I know you just read the article. That's the problem.
Post a Comment