Comments by justlistenall

A funny thing happened on the way to this forum.

If anyone thinks Chen Guangcheng gained freedom "at last" when he arrived the land of the free, he is in for a big surprise.

According to "Want Daily", a Taiwan based newspaper who had advocated exit visa to the US for Mr. Chen before his release from China, reported today that no one is allowed to talk to Mr. Chen or his family without being on a special list of approval. Not even to leave a gift for him.

And he is not permitted to speak to anyone outside that list of personnel without approval from a "public relation organization".

Perhap he must be debriefed, coached or otherwised prepared before his appearance, but if such ban on Chen's freedom of movement and speech persists much long, what price "freedom" and what an irony for the world to see?

Timing and improvement are important to "copying".

Today people use mouse clicking Window everyday, but how many know or remember an outfit called Xerox Palo Alto Reserch Laboratory (in Bay area of California) when using them?

This article's title reads [An activist’s fate overshadows a vital relationship]

In my view, Mr. Chen Guangcheng himself did not overshadow "a vital relation". It's more likely the US State Department manufactured the Chen matter to raise the bar in the give and take of "a vital relation".

Supposedly, the US can then give in or "cave in" to China with "great pain" on this matter of its own creation of nothing in the first place, in exchange for China to yield on matters of substance to the US interest.

Did it work? Who knows? May be only the shadow does.

"I wonder what white people are going to complain next?"???

It's easy to think of something.

But it's not the "white people", it's the "West". Big difference there and make no mistake about that.

Now the Economist has finally come to realize it. This is what pro-China commentators have been saying all along, that Chinese Yuan is not overvalued now and in my opinion, it was never really overvalued even back in 2005.

For developing economies, trade surplus or balance should never have been used as the sole measure of currency valuation because it did not account for income disparity existing among trading nations. China was forced to re-valuate its Yuan 30% higher since 2005 for "nothing" and was hurt in the process. This was no free trading but highway robbery of Chinese whose income disparity with American was and still is at least being 10:1.

This situation was entirely different from that of Plaza Accord where income disparity between Japanese and American then was no more than 2:1, so that forcing Chinese Yuan to rise against the US dollar is much less justified than forcing the valuation of Japanese Yen then.

The US should not pressure Chinese Yuan any longer.

Your points are well taken. The cost of make-labor of a product, hardware or software, including that of manufacturing process, QC and all, typically makes up a small percentage of cost of launching and pricing the product, Apple or not.
.
I think what makes Apple standing out in the case of iXXX products, is the extraordinary vision and wisdom of Steve Job in defining the feature envelop of a product, how it should be made, sold and consumed (used), and his ways to staying with those few who can be entrusted with respective jobs assigned or contracted for. It has little to do where the jobs were done (the US, China or OK, Timbuktu) but everything to do with who were to do the jobs. Apple's pick of Foxconn in China (Honghai Taiwan) was no accident.

While people are talking manufacturing by 3-D printing, there is no evidence or strong reason that [Off shore production is increasingly moving back to rich countries…] from developing economies.

Quite clearly, it’s still a best bet to have goods made outsourced (How else Apple is capable of being so fat profited?). Small wonder that China’s FDI is still increasing, albeit at reduced rate of increasing due to Euro debt problem, and it is expected to continue exceeding $100 b in 2012.

Bring back outsourced services to rich countries such as call centers is more viable and achievable because it involves little tool cost and puts more people back on the job.

Every nation has its Achilles heels of some sort, but China’s ain’t its demography.

This Economist article offers all the right numbers and arguments except one fatal or near fatal flaw in its conclusion. The article concludes that China is not likely to come out of the shaft of ageing like the West would because among other things, it does not have “strong legal and political institutions” as America does.

But in its relentless quest for socialism of ‘Chinese characteristics’, reforms are not limited only to the realm of economy. How does anyone know that China will not have “strong legal and political institutions”, as termed in the article, by then in 2050, or 38 years from now?

China’s demography, as it turns out, of reduced birth rate that China could not have otherwise afforded, laid the foundation for China’s reform and opening up that eradicated poverty of at least 300 m people with significantly better literacy and life expectancy that in turn paved the way for China’s sprint to today’s economical achievement.

The rest of course is not history yet as nothing is free and China has to pay something somewhere for its success. Is it going to be worth it?

That’s for the later generations to decide. But “definitely worth it” in my view. Just look at the alternatives almost unavoidable to other large and developing nations.

My hat’s off for this expertly written and well presented Economist article.

The following is part of my March 17th, 17:45 heuristic comment regarding China’s “overinvestment” on the Mar 17th 2012 Economist article “Fears of a hard landing--China ran a massive trade deficit in February. What does it say about the economy?” :

[“That per capita GDP of China is only about 10% of the West is not just a set of stat data. It is the state of the nation as compared to the West, and China is indeed far behind. China may have hosted 31 of world’s 100 tallest buildings, 34 of world’s 82 most notable and modern bridges, or among the ones with the most superhighways, railways and high speed rails, but China’s need of infrastructure of economy is more than that, its need for vast improvement in the likes of streets, rural roads, green belts, sewer lines, schools, hospitals, rural clinics etc., etc. is far more from being adequate by Western standards.

If the two can not be emphasized at the same time due to budget constraints, the further-ment of infrastructure building investment is still by far more important than the increase of domestic consumption in my view.

I hope China would not succumb to international or domestic enticement / pressure to pursue the wrong course of forsaking investment in favor of consumption that would be easier to court current opinion of the people but harder to their future.”]

It bodes well with what this Economist article appears to be saying.

As far as goods go most of the time, being "best" is the enemy of "being good enough". Being good enough and made cheaper within the rule of law together is competitiveness.

Countries like China should be proud of having such competitiveness on global market.

Saying "Cheap product from so and so" may be slight or derogatory in intent, but it's big compliment after all.

@Bismarck888 in reply to justlistenall April 7th, 18:43

You claim: "When people disagree with you, you starting attacking people for lack of knowledge or using wikipedia. Did I use wikipedia."?

It’s not “attacking” you. it’s merely statement of fact. And the fact is that you don’t know much about Chinese or China.

See? You are already backtracking in this post from your earlier allegation after I pointed out the fallacy of it to you.

So you should stop acting as some Mr. know when you are not, and stop using that line of defense when you are being corrected.

And you should stop doing apple vs orange again. Your talking Vietnam and China is as bad and laughable as comparing Columbia with USA, as Columbia's GDP of about $280 b is less than 2% of USA GDP, similar to VN's GDP of about $90 b being less than 2% of China's GDP. They are simply relatively too tiny to compare meaningfully.

Even Columbia's GDP is 2.5 times bigger than VN's GDP with is only 10% of Taiwan GDP. There you have it.

Your problem is you don’t know much about China or CCP, yet somehow somewhere you must have convinced yourself that you are some expert of sorts by citing whatever you picked up here and there from Wikipedia and stuff. The name dropping in your post appears being impressive to the uninitiated, but really being mistaken to the learned.

Suffice for you to learn that in China, CCP party (and there the state) controls the gun, not the other way around.

ps: And Vietnam's GDP of $102 b in 2010 is less than 2% of China's. So do readers a favor by quit comparing China with Vietnam every time, will you?

You said, "Well, how about every single newspaper, television station, radio station and political commentator in Australia for a start?"

Well, how about every single newspaper,..., that’s a little less provincial and a lot more international like the Economist, with three related articles already to Bo to boot, for a start?

“in a lot of these chopstick countries in East Asia, losing face is a big deal.”?

Haha, losing face is a big deal in the West too, and don’t tell me being otherwise.

China’s top leadership needs not to be as monolithic as expected from outside. Even President Obama, Secretary Clinton and congress don’t see all things eye to eye.

Mr. Bo Xilai’s removal from Chongqing leadership was and still is big news big time. And way not? Why should China be immune from the kind of power struggle, personal greed or infighting stuff that’s part of Western democracy also?

Most people don’t know what exactly happened with the Bo case, so it’s only natural to have all sorts of rumor mills, with pro and con. China’s press is not a free for all press (is there any press that is absolutely free?) and so when some rumors got vicious and ridiculous, governing body should put a stop to it and frankly I am surprised that it only took three days to do it.

Did anybody speculate what went on behind the scene for Ms Gillard and Mr Rudd fight in Australia for instance?

I can not prove it but I actually heard from someone in America saying the rumors started from a FLG site. But this remains to be ascertained.

Needless to say, the element of Schadenfreude for something worse to happen was there all along too. May be they are in for some big disappointment.

It does appear that unlike a housewife's job, NATO's job is done.

NATO should either retire or get Russia on board and rerganize itself to some permanent pan-European police or homeland security forces to be paid for by member states without depending on American taxpayers money.

I was going to say what “passingby474” said that “I saw tibetans standing around the burning bodies without even putting out the fire; the world are watching you burning youself in bulling China.”, then I noticed the article photo of a burning man from the earlier edition where the photo that clearly showed what’s appearing to be cheering crowd to urging him on, is now edited out or cut out from view.

And that exposed the issue of sensationalism of the media on the matter.

To see a young life needlessly burned to ashes is a shame. His murderer is no other than those who brainwashed him into trance to kill himself like they did to young suicide bombers. Small wonder Chinese government call them terrorists, as they are.

Whether one likes it or not, the reality is that Tibet (Xi Zang) is domestic to China that’s officially recognized by just abut every nation including USA and India. As recent as two days ago at a BRICS meeting in Delhi, Indian Prime Minister Singh told Chinese President Hu to the effect that India will not allow anyone inside India to engage anti China activity regarding Tibet.

So let’s not wishy washy about this here. Anyone who has issue re. if Tibet being a part of China should take it up to his/her government, not bashing China here.

That is not to say they or Tibetan exiles do not have legitimate concerns about Tibetans residing in China. But that should not be addressed in some racial brawls as “Tibetans vs Hans, or Tibetans vs Chinese (Tibetans are of course Chinese citizens)”.

Tibetan exiles bitch and moan about religious freedom, yet anyone who have visited Tibet can judge for him (her)self, but I for one think Tibetans in China enjoy far more religious freedom than exiles do in Dharamsala or in India at large.

Besides enjoying religious freedom, they enjoy unprecedented freedom in economic lives and livelihoods a Tibetan or as former rural serf could not even dreamt of before 1959 when Dalai Lama was at the reign. Today, with life expectancy doubled from 34 years to over 70 years and literacy rate improved from 5 % to 95 % (in Tibetan language too), per capita GDP in Tibet is higher than per capita GDP in India.

These are all hard facts that triumphant over any argument. To call CCP government names just because one doesn’t like it or refuses to believe its works is simply irrational.

Now Tibetans may not be as “free” as westerners are, but that’s not because of their religion or being Tibetans, but because they are Chinese who as a whole are not as “free” as westerners in terms of western value. It has nothing to do with being Tibetans. It's like you can't accuse the government did not feed Tibetan steaks since all Chinese were not fed steaks per se.

Now let’s examine why so much fuss about Tibet. Taking away undue outside interferences or scheming, I think Dalai Lama has been taken hostage by the silly wishful thinking of returning to his old days of theocracy of caste serfdom. That would be an impossibility even if with some magic wand he was granted his wish and got installed as such. He would still be the puppet of his handlers of whoever or you know whom, just like Pu Yi was "emperor" with his "Man-Zhou-Guo" under the guise and leash of Japanese imperialist during WW2.

Overall, Dalai Lama could still do one last thing for Tibetan exiles if he really cares for them: Call off the senseless killing of young lives of “self-immolation” and stop acting as a coward hiding behind these murders.

To take things somewhat backwards and like someone said here correctly, even mass murderer Jim Jones did die with hundreds of followers of his cult by all drinking poison laced KoolAids in Guyana. The dear leader "HHDL" did not and simply opted out (or chicken out) in Dharamsala, some dear leader.

I don't entertain debate with those who swears and smears.

I think Dalai Lama is losing credibility in the West fast in general and almost a goner now. His condonation of self immolation of young monks reveals the troubling deep dark side of this man for all to see in the open.

Haha, thanks much "New Student 2009", your writing is getting so good now.

Let him (Bismarck) spells out with his hatred of Chinese so much so that I was not aware of before. Well, can't win them all, I guess. Thank you again.

Without commenting the religious relevancy of each faith, there exists a big fallacy as Westerners automatically associate Dalai Lama and his followers as Buddhists when most nominal sects of Buddhism in Asia do not consider them Buddhists at all.

Where in Buddhism, all persons are born to this world equal without prejudice of each other, what Dalai Lama represents is an altogether different backward caste theocracy where most Tibetan people are destined as serfs for earth life owned by their earth masters like Dalai Lama himself (who did own slaves).

A close analogue is to be found in the West where most denominations of Christianity do not consider sects like Jehovah Witness or Later Day Saints (Mormons) as fellow Christians because of fundamental differences in understanding the Bible.

But being English trained as an able communicator, the old fox in Dalai Lama managed to fool many of young and better educated people in the West who aspired for enlightenment and auriferous or divine revelation of life outside the Christian doctrinarian they considered being hackneyed or lethargic to them.

Many followed him not because of his teaching (there really isn’t any, except some ambiguous words which can be interpreted in many ways to suit audiences), but because many young and educated elites of the West followed him. This was a situation not unlike how Korean Unification church Rev. Moon was getting a large following in the US.

Moon survived in the US because he was staunchly anti-communism, with their newspaper "Washington Times" to boot. Heart broken parents often had to hire deprogrammers, even committing kidnapping when being desperate, to pry loose their loved children from the hold of that church. Is Moon Church a fellow Christian? Better ask other Christians to find out.

Dalai Lama flourished in the West because he was cryptically philosophical in his measured and articulating English that attracted the likes of Richard Gere and Sharon Stone,.... And then there are those who found him useful to bash China.

Dalai Lama also made himself amenable to be handled by foreign agents for their foreign policy end, all done cold bloodily yet in his disarmingly unassuming ways. But increasingly Western people are beginning to see the fake throughout of him.

He reduced once sacred self immolation into (from Kommonsenses post) “essentially terrorism attack to the society not fundamentally different from suicide bombers or the Japanese kamikaze pilots. They all share the same common characteristics of having the innocent young doing the dying (after brainwashed to hypnotized or trance mental state), while the vicious older ones hiding cowardly behind doing the plotting.”

China Tibet Online did not attack him as such in this article, Dalai Lama needs no attack from others. His evil scheming and misdeeds are his attack of himself aplenty.