Economic suicide biggest threat to China

Economic suicide biggest threat to China

Global Times | 2013-8-14 19:28:01 By John Ross

Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on sinaweibo Share on linkedin More Sharing Services 0  E-mail   Print

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

China cannot be murdered, therefore it must be persuaded to commit suicide. This summarizes the geopolitical situation as seen by Western anti-China circles.

It encapsulates that China's national revival has now reached a point where no external forces are strong enough to prevent China's rise. The US remains militarily stronger, but China's strength is sufficient that US losses in a war would be so great even neoconservatives do not advocate it.

US authorities can try to murder Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and possibly in the future Latin American countries, but China is too strong.

This does not mean Western anti-China circles have given up. If it is impossible to murder China, perhaps it may be possible to persuade it to commit suicide? This idea might appear ludicrous, but actually the US has already succeeded twice, with Japan and the USSR.

From the 1970s, confronted with dramatic Japanese economic growth, the US persuaded Japan to overvalue the yen, cut investment to slow growth, and implement ultra-low interest rates after the Wall Street crash in 1987, allowing Japan's capital to flow to the US and safeguarding the latter's financial system, while Japan itself suffered the "bubble economy" which exploded in 1990.

In the 1990s, the West persuaded the USSR not to follow China's successful economic reform, but to undertake "shock therapy" - total privatization of state companies.

The result was the greatest peacetime economic collapse seen in a major country in modern history. Russia's GDP fell by 40 percent, male life expectancy dropped by seven years, and Baltic and Central Asian independence movements destroyed the USSR, reducing Russia from leading a state of 288 million people to one with a 143 million population. Vladimir Putin accurately described this as "the greatest geopolitical disaster of the last century."

China is harder to persuade to commit suicide. Unlike Japan, it cannot be blackmailed via military dependence on the US. Unlike the USSR, China is not pursuing an economically adventurist policy of seeking military parity with the US on the basis of a GDP only 40 percent as large.

But the West understands its leverage points. Ordinary Chinese citizens are economically tied to their motherland, but the rich can take wealth abroad.

The fate of State-owned enterprises and many productive private companies is tied to China's economic revival, but some financial groups can get rich even amid chaos, while certain professionals can be offered jobs such as well-paid professorships at US universities.

Therefore, a comprador bourgeoisie exists with support among those Chinese professionals whose highest ambition would be a US green card. If China cannot be murdered, these may be used to persuade China to commit suicide by adopting policies damaging itself.

After experience with Japan and the USSR, the US government knows accurately which policies those are.

Investment is the most important factor in economic growth, so China's economy should be slowed by reducing investment, as was Japan's.

An overvalued currency slows an economy, so constant pressure should be exerted for the yuan's exchange rate to rise excessively.

China's State-owned companies are its economic core and key to its ability to calibrate macroeconomic policy, so they should be weakened or destroyed, as with the USSR.

Moreover, to attempt to conceal that China's rise in living standards is the fastest ever seen in a major country, billions of propaganda dollars should be spent exaggerating out of proportion every real problem inevitably arising in China's rapid development.

It is therefore to radically misunderstand the situation to imagine the biggest threat to China is US aircraft carriers in the Pacific.

The biggest threat to China is forces within it trying to persuade it to commit suicide by adopting policies inevitably derailing its national revival.

Such processes can easily be followed from outside China. But while murder involves another person, suicide is a personal decision. The world's most important question is whether China can be persuaded to commit suicide or not.

The author is former director of London's Economic and Business Policy and currently a senior fellow with Chongyang Institute, Renmin University of China. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Children need solution

It is bad to tell children all their faults and mistakes without telling them why and what they should do not to repeat their mistakes and to better themselves. Children do not often have the intellect to think out solutions and answers. Pointing out their mistakes would not make them become better. They are children after all and are at the bottom of the learning curve. Children need guidance and hand holding.
 
Adults are slightly different. Adults, even those who have average intelligence, are able to work out their problems without much difficulty unless it is beyond them. Just tell them where they have gone wrong, their mistakes, and that would be good enough for them to work things out in most cases, unless they are really dull or recalcitrant, refusing to change for the good.
 
Then there are very intelligent adults. Actually such intellects should know what they are doing and should not be making mistakes or simple mistakes or obvious mistakes or silly mistakes. Super talents are not called super talents for nothing. But being human, it is forgiveable that sometimes they do make mistakes, intentionally or unintentionally, or because of greed or vested interests or due to group think or whatever.
 
Mistakes or bad decisions are made by super talents now and then. And very likely they know what they are doing, that they are doing wrongs. The people, the cynics, the concerned citizens, often spent long hours trying to tell the super talents that some things are not right, not necessarily wrong. I think, given the fact that they are super talents, a little prompting should be more than adequate for them to work out better solutions. Is there really a need for the daft, the average and the not too talented to offer solutions to the super talents? If this is the case then something is seriously wrong. It is like those who can see asking the blind how to cross the road.
 
And why should the daft offer free solutions to those who are paid millions to do their jobs?
 
Often we heard from the super talents and the pretenders demanding the average Sinkies to not just complain, but to come out with solutions. Is this a reasonable expectation? Is it not enough to point out the faults, the flaws and the mistakes for the super talented to move on? They are super talents you know? Are the super talents expecting to be spoon fed by the daft? It is crazy, right?
 
The super talents should be very grateful that the daft are kpkb everyday about their daft policies and decisions. The only reason why they are not coming up with better solutions and demanding solutions from the daft is likely that they knew that the better solutions will not be what they want or what they think is right. The daft should not be patronizing to think they know better than the super talents. And the super talents should not act daft to demand the daft to offer their daft solutions.
 
As for the many pretenders, please, there is no need to be the spokespersons of the super talents to parrot and demand the daft to offer solutions instead of criticism. The criticisms are good enough for the super talents to pick up from there and come up with better solutions if the intention is there. Think about it.

Excuse me, take your hands off

Excuse me, take your hands off my money! It is a bad habit to dip your hand into other people’s piggy banks or savings to help yourself. Even if you are the govt, you have no damn right to do so. Tio boh? Even if you go to Parliament and vote to use my money, it is still ‘illegal’ and immoral. The Constitution, without even looking into it, must have provisions to protect the people from any one thinking he can help himself with the people’s private property, including money. And the savings of the people in the CPF, in the Medisave, belong to the people, the individuals who put them there as their savings for their retirement. Is there anyone with the audacity to decide how the money should be spent for the rightful owners?

Who is arrogant enough to think he can do what he likes with the people’s money without asking for their consent? This bad habit is now second nature, it seems. The Govt is now so bold as to think that it can suka suka take liberties of the people’s savings as if it is the owner of the money. How outrageous can it be?

Any constitutional lawyer or human rights lawyer could care to explain why this is so? Or does the whole legal profession believes or agrees that the Govt has all the right to do so and that is why no one is willing to stand up to be counted, to say otherwise? If that is the case, then I will take my words back and can understand why the Govt is doing so.

The Govt must know that it has the legal right to take the people’s savings to buy life insurance, medical insurance and even to keep it for the good of the people for as long as it deems fit. It must have been rightly advised that it can do so by the best legal minds in this island. Short of something similar to the Land Acquisition Act, the Govt’s action to use the people’s CPF savings is kinda like a de facto Savings Acquisition Act.

So silly of me. I shouldn’t have wasted my time writing this. If the legal profession does not think it as a wrong, no one in this city thinks it is wrong, then it must be right. I rest my case.

Excuse me, please do whatever you like with my savings, and feel free to do so anytime you feel convenient and the need to do so. You have the right to decide what to do with my savings and how to spend my savings for my own good.

Thank you very much. We are so bless with such a caring Govt.

How to conquer the world

Till the Second World War, the world or countries were conquered by the use of military might. It was all about superiority in technology and military weapons. Countries that were relatively small could conquer countries many times their size in land and people. All the European powers were small countries relative to Africa, the two Americas and even countries like India and China. But they ruled the world and built empires that lasted for several hundred years.

After the WW2, the two remaining superpowers of USSR and the USA attempted to continue to rule the world with military might. This time they were not so successful. The East European bloc under the USSR broke up with the breaking up of the Soviet Union. The Americans fought several wars in Asia and the Middle East and were defeated or unable to subdue the invaded countries. The Soviet Union left in defeat in Afghanistan, the Americans held on with some residual forces in Japan and South Korea but were bitterly thrashed in Vietnam, a poor and much smaller country. The Americans are still trying to rule the Middle East and northern African but finding it increasingly difficult as long as the people are willing to die fighting the Americans.

Unable to make further headways, the American’s are shifting their military targets into Asia hoping to fight another war using their allies as proxies. This new development is still work in progress starting with the American pivot and is doing fine with Japan, India, Vietnam and the Philippines happily on board in this bandwagon of war. The story is unfolding rapidly with tension rising and flashed points increasing.

There is yet another war going on quietly, to conquer the world. In this new warfare, it is not about military might and using extreme force and power. It is a sublime infiltration of people, through migration and population. This is a new war conducted by the poor nations, the so called Third World to occupy and conquer the rich and powerful First World, without firing a shot, and with the unannounced acquiescence and compliance of the First World countries. The migrants are invited to populate the rich countries and to eventually swarm and take over the countries by sheer numbers.

The remarkable thing about this new conquest of the world by the poor Third World and apparently helpless and less able people is that it is inevitable. The First World countries are not reproducing themselves and are inviting the Third World people to replace them, willingly though grudgingly and with certain amount of contempt. They, the First World countries, believe that they needed the numbers from the Third World to fill up the gaps and for economic growth, and nothing else. They did not count on the consequences in the long run when they become the minority or the sheer numbers and integration of the migrants would make the takeover of their countries unnoticeable and seamless.

A good example is Singapore, a small island with a small population that can easily be replaced by foreigners. And because of its unique multicultural history of migrants, the new migrants would become citizens and leaving no traces of the origins. And it is only a matter of time when the majority of the island will be new migrants. And the best part, the govt sees this as good, as a new formula to sustain economic growth and the viability of the city state. In one generation, the Singaporean core, the original Singaporeans from the year of Independence will become a minority in the island and in two generations they would probably be lost in a sea of new citizens and be extinct like the dodo birds or like many of the native flora and fauna in the island.

The Third World people will conquer the world and rule the New World without having to fight a world war. They are welcomed to take over by the more intelligent and more industrious First World inhabitants. Europe and the USA will go along in a matter of time, without knowing it.

Bringing Medishield Life down to earth

The madness of this Medishield Life has gone into everyone without any firm ideas being crystallised. At most the Medishield Life Scheme is just a red hot balloon floated in the air, an idea that has been thrown out in a rally but with no meat or bones in it. It has however, got many people thinking, excited, some scared to death and many people in delusion. Some even feel that their old age health problems are solved and there is no need to worry anymore. And there are those who are going to profit from it handsomely and smilingly quietly to themselves for the good fortune.

It is time to bring this hot balloon down to earth to make it real. Gan Kim Yong has said that there is nothing firm about this sketchy scheme and many hours of hard work will ensue to turn this into a reality, a practical solution to meet the expectations of all interested parties. The initial exuberance that such a scheme would cover all the medical needs of the oldies need to be toned down and the high expectations need to be doused with a pail of cold water. The cost of covering everything and every need of the oldies will make it near impossible to cover from the insurance point of view unless cost is not an issue. The premium is going to cost a bomb. It cannot be small and affordable for sure.

For practical and cost reasons, such an insurance coverage must be carefully defined. To be feasible from the insurer’s point of view and a reasonable premium to be paid, the insured must know that there is a price for everything. The people may want to demand that the Govt takes ownership of such a scheme and practise some filial piety towards the senior citizens of the country.

I hesitate to want to offer any free solutions for various reasons, ie not having a full appreciation of the complexity of such an issue, not having the resources and time to think deeply into the issue, and not wanting to insult the millionaire talents to think on their behalf, nor to offer stupid solutions as a layman. But there is no harm to make a few general suggestions that are obvious to many and not be accused of trying to be clever.

I would like to suggest that the Govt provide a first level of protection to all senior citizens either from 65 or 70 years onward comprising C class ward stay in govt hospitals and general geriatric care. Basically this scheme will pay for ward charges and basic medical care that are not prohibitive in cost. The scheme shall not cover any major and costly operations. The object of such a scheme is to provide some peace of mind to the poor oldies that they would be reasonably well taken care of in a hospital if admitted. The scheme shall not cover for expensive operations and treatments. This could be defined by the professionals. This scheme shall be provided free to the senior citizens and the scheme can be compulsory without frightening the people with unlimited premiums to pay.

A comprehensive coverage for all senior citizens cannot be extravagant and unlimited in nature.

On top of this basic coverage, the people could then be given a few enhanced medishield schemes that they are willing to pay for. These have to be voluntary and allowing the people to chose one within their means and expectation. Here the rich and those with the ability to pay can ask for the sky and demand for the best. This is like feasting in a restaurant, the economy class or high end restaurants with different price tags to suit the different aspirations and expectations. The Govt can offer the basic healthcare needs while the luxury part should be individualised and pay through the individual’s own pocket. The poor must not be made to pay for the rich and their high expectations. This is elementary.

Having two such schemes operating in parallel would not bust the Govt’s coffer or deplete the savings of the people in the Medisave. A comprehensive no limit coverage is definitely impractical and insane from the cost point of view. It will bankrupt every insured and also the insurers. To make such a scheme compulsory is unthinkable unless the Govt is footing the bill. To pass the bill to the insured is irresponsible.