MichaelJ

Chinese play antiamerican song in whitehouse

19 posts in this topic

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/49822/

Chinese use their visit to the US, to play antiamerican songs in the white house.

For those who call themselves 'Objectivists' who support China, even tho all the evidence shows they are enemies of the US, and violators of rights, shame on you.

This being allowed to happen in the white house is a travesty that will hurt American interests for decades. It reinforces the 'paper tiger' image that is being formed around the world about the US and will help speed up the receding of US influence with its subsequent replacement by China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankfully, within a few years the Chinese bubble will burst, and they will feel a lot less proud.

They used to say the Soviet way was better. Then they used to say the Japanese had a "better capitalism". You hear the same ** about China, this time around. But when the investors will flee (and I include the Chinese investors in those), the scarred, weakened China will contemplate its wound and understand a true lesson in humility.

The only country which has repeatedly survived and come out on top of every economic crisis is the US, because it is the only country in the world that understands property rights and in which property rights and individual rights are philosophically and legally at the core of the way of life. I do not see that changing soon, even with the current trend towards Europeanization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thankfully, within a few years the Chinese bubble will burst, and they will feel a lot less proud.

They used to say the Soviet way was better. Then they used to say the Japanese had a "better capitalism". You hear the same ** about China, this time around. But when the investors will flee (and I include the Chinese investors in those), the scarred, weakened China will contemplate its wound and understand a true lesson in humility.

The only country which has repeatedly survived and come out on top of every economic crisis is the US, because it is the only country in the world that understands property rights and in which property rights and individual rights are philosophically and legally at the core of the way of life. I do not see that changing soon, even with the current trend towards Europeanization.

My litmus test for any nation is freedom of speech. A government that is proud of its actions, and proud of its relationship with its citizens would not outlaw freedom of speech. Instead they would welcome it, for the citizens would mainly talk about how good their life is, and if there are any problems, the government would have the self confidence in itself to be able to rectify them.

A government that outlaws freedom of speech however, is deathly afraid. It is afraid of its citizens comparing notes on how badly they have been treated, it is afraid of the citizens comparing their lives to other nations, and it is afraid it can't solve any problems that citizens identify. That is how I see China, a country afraid of its citizens, it brutalises them in the hope they will never unite and rise up against their government.

Having lived in a small country all my life, I don't get sucked into comparing GDP as a total between nations. So what if Chinas GDP is almost the same as Americas now? They got far bigger population. It is the average GDP per capita that I look at, and those figures say that the Chinese economy is a long long way from catching up to America.

Does their growth amaze me? No it does not, for while I might not be an expert in economics, I have got one private rule that I apply to nations. A nation that is playing catchup, finds it far easier to grow than a nation that is the very best.

A farmer in a third world nation, if he finally gets the freedom to do so, can mortgage his land and buy the latest tractor from the US that quadruples his productivity as an individual. As long as he has the money, he can get the very latest the west has to offer. But for the west to build those machines, they had to invest in centuries of research and development; development of many iterations each applying the latest knowledge discovered at that point in time.

The third world can leapfrog over all that effort in purchasing the latest, to get the efficiency of the latest now, to get the spectacular growth of the west over centuries in a matter of years.

Does their currency worry me? No, for I know one secret about China, they import a heck of a lot of the raw materials for their economy, such as coal, iron, gas and so on from Australia and other nations. If the US governments accusations about China holding its currency low to encourage exports is true, well it is equally punishing China in the import of the raw materials from Australia and punishing China in the import of the latest technology from the rest of the world. It is needlessly wasting Chinese capital.

There are only 2 things that concern me about China.

1. Its military buildup. Besides Russia and North Korea, all of Chinas neighbors are peaceful. North Koreas military is a joke so they can't be planning this military buildup against North Korea. Russia wouldn't risk the Chinese nukes since they are well within range of all of the Chinese nuclear missiles.

The military buildup has a lot of antisatellite weapons, and a lot of anti carrier weapons. There is only 1 nation on earth that relies heavily on both of those in its military so the question has to be asked - Why is China building up a military designed to fight the US?

2. Properganda victories such as playing anti american songs at the whitehouse. Events such as those, embolden dictators to take on the US. This event, has probably created 5 more Saddam Huisseins that America will have to fight in the next century to maintain global peace for they will have seen China spit in the face of the US, insulting America right in the whitehouse with no repercussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A nation that is playing catchup, finds it far easier to grow than a nation that is the very best.

A farmer in a third world nation, if he finally gets the freedom to do so, can mortgage his land and buy the latest tractor from the US that quadruples his productivity as an individual. As long as he has the money, he can get the very latest the west has to offer. But for the west to build those machines, they had to invest in centuries of research and development; development of many iterations each applying the latest knowledge discovered at that point in time.

The third world can leapfrog over all that effort in purchasing the latest, to get the efficiency of the latest now, to get the spectacular growth of the west over centuries in a matter of years.

This is something many people believe is true, due to the high visibility of recent cases (Japan, China, Taiwan, Brazil to an extent). However, Peter Thiel and Clarium Capital's team ran a test to see what % of third world countries, over the 20th century, experienced "convergence" (the effect you describe, which results in about 8-9% per annum growth over a decade or two). 8%.

This is because poor nations are also those most likely to be democratic (as opposed to Republics like the US), and the most likely to see mob rule vote in "advantages" that hinder any economic growth. Part of the problem, to be fair, was the fact that whilst colonies freed themselves from their metropolitan overseer in the mid-20th century, the popular political theory of the day was hard communism, which most of these new countries happily lapped up since it gave their leaders absolute power. Result: India effectively looked the same in 1991, when its successive 5-year plans caused it to go bankrupt, as it did in 1950 (down to the cars and trucks which haven't changed); Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and reduced its farm output to 2% of its British days'; Bolivia and other South American neighbours still have dirt tracks whilst their Pinochet-restructured neighbour Chile has smooth asphalt; and so on.

Convergence is gaining popularity as an aim for third world nations, and especially in Africa (thanks to high visibility advocates like Dambisa Moyo) it's happening already.

As for the AUD, I would short it still. When the China bubble bursts, I hope for your sake that your savings will be in another currency...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the farmer, most of those farmers will use the mortgage money to buy a TV and some whisky, and then default on the loan when it comes due. Welcome to the third world. Communists are not good capitalists when the doors open and this explains in part the failure of the liberalization of Eastern Europe (Poland excepted) - the former Soviet factories and the Soviet workers were hopelessly unproductive and had nothing to export.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the AUD, I would short it still. When the China bubble bursts, I hope for your sake that your savings will be in another currency...

I am in complete agreement on shorting the AUD(and already have been doing so actually), I consider it massively overvalued. When you can stick money in our banks and earn 6%+ interest, and borrow from other nations banks for 1 to 2% interest, well there is stacks of people borrowing from overseas and buying up the Australian dollar to stick it in our banks for easy money. It won't even take Chinas bubble bursting to hurt the AUD, it will take merely the US or Europes central banks to start raising their interest rates and then the Australian dollar will probably drop 20%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is something many people believe is true, due to the high visibility of recent cases (Japan, China, Taiwan, Brazil to an extent). However, Peter Thiel and Clarium Capital's team ran a test to see what % of third world countries, over the 20th century, experienced "convergence" (the effect you describe, which results in about 8-9% per annum growth over a decade or two). 8%.

This is because poor nations are also those most likely to be democratic (as opposed to Republics like the US), and the most likely to see mob rule vote in "advantages" that hinder any economic growth. Part of the problem, to be fair, was the fact that whilst colonies freed themselves from their metropolitan overseer in the mid-20th century, the popular political theory of the day was hard communism, which most of these new countries happily lapped up since it gave their leaders absolute power. Result: India effectively looked the same in 1991, when its successive 5-year plans caused it to go bankrupt, as it did in 1950 (down to the cars and trucks which haven't changed); Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and reduced its farm output to 2% of its British days'; Bolivia and other South American neighbours still have dirt tracks whilst their Pinochet-restructured neighbour Chile has smooth asphalt; and so on.

Convergence is gaining popularity as an aim for third world nations, and especially in Africa (thanks to high visibility advocates like Dambisa Moyo) it's happening already.

As for the AUD, I would short it still. When the China bubble bursts, I hope for your sake that your savings will be in another currency...

Thanks for the term convergence, it was a private view that I had, but now I got a name for it. :D

I don't see convergence as automatic, it takes a government shifting towards economic freedom for it to happen. In most 3rd world nations, a big problem stopping convergence is a lack of capital because most citizens can't access the capital in the land their house is on due to a lack of a system of property rights. They got nothing to guarantee the loans with.

One thing I am interested on seeing when the Chinese bubble bursts, will the lack of freedom of speech make the economic problems worse in China?

It doesn't matter how much economic freedom that the Chinese government gives people in their special economic zones, if the Chinese government favour a certain company and punishes any citizen for advocating shorting a government favoured company because the citizen identified problems in it.

I see the lack of a freedom of speech, as causing problems for quick, efficient capital reallocation when the bubble bursts there. (And it wouldn't surprise me if their government not only banned talk of it when it bursts, but tried to impose price controls to hide it for a while).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rtg, would you say the Chinese government is a subscriber to pragmatism? It seems fitting that a country with a moral foundation (the US) would be more stable over time than China. And, as Michael points out, the US has contributed an incalculable amount of scientific, technological and political development from which others can benefit. One might wonder where Europe and Asia would be today without 19th and 20th century America.

Also, I sent you a PM. Perhaps you're using NoScript like I do? Took me a while to catch a new message before remembering what's hiding the popup, heh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A nation that is playing catchup, finds it far easier to grow than a nation that is the very best.

A farmer in a third world nation, if he finally gets the freedom to do so, can mortgage his land and buy the latest tractor from the US that quadruples his productivity as an individual. As long as he has the money, he can get the very latest the west has to offer. But for the west to build those machines, they had to invest in centuries of research and development; development of many iterations each applying the latest knowledge discovered at that point in time.

The third world can leapfrog over all that effort in purchasing the latest, to get the efficiency of the latest now, to get the spectacular growth of the west over centuries in a matter of years.

This is something many people believe is true, due to the high visibility of recent cases (Japan, China, Taiwan, Brazil to an extent). However, Peter Thiel and Clarium Capital's team ran a test to see what % of third world countries, over the 20th century, experienced "convergence" (the effect you describe, which results in about 8-9% per annum growth over a decade or two). 8%.

This is because poor nations are also those most likely to be democratic (as opposed to Republics like the US), and the most likely to see mob rule vote in "advantages" that hinder any economic growth. Part of the problem, to be fair, was the fact that whilst colonies freed themselves from their metropolitan overseer in the mid-20th century, the popular political theory of the day was hard communism, which most of these new countries happily lapped up since it gave their leaders absolute power. Result: India effectively looked the same in 1991, when its successive 5-year plans caused it to go bankrupt, as it did in 1950 (down to the cars and trucks which haven't changed); Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and reduced its farm output to 2% of its British days'; Bolivia and other South American neighbours still have dirt tracks whilst their Pinochet-restructured neighbour Chile has smooth asphalt; and so on.

Convergence is gaining popularity as an aim for third world nations, and especially in Africa (thanks to high visibility advocates like Dambisa Moyo) it's happening already.

As for the AUD, I would short it still. When the China bubble bursts, I hope for your sake that your savings will be in another currency...

It's interesting that you mention Dambisa Moyo and convergence: she was on the UK's

to very briefly discuss U.S.-China "convergence."

She's doing a hell of a job with certain African leaders -- Rwanda's Kagame being the most obvious example. But, I wonder how widely her message is being heard. There has definitely been a move towards the free-market (or "public-private partnerships") in recent years in a few African countries, but Islam and the remnants of nationalism threaten these developments. The recent secession vote by the Southern Sudanese promises to be a test-case for what is possible in West Africa and perhaps even Central and East Africa in regard to Islam.

If the Tunisian case does not become a win for the Islamists -- and if the Tea Party and capitalism gain traction in the U.S. -- perhaps West, Central, East, and Southern Africa may, over the next 50 years see serious growth. But, this is a very, very optimistic view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Optimistic indeed, but as far as we (commodity traders) are concerned it's already produced fairly visible, meaningful change (at least as far as our trades are concerned). We're even considering investing in assets there (e.g. setting up a few modern farms diversifies your supply from the Southern Cone or Ukraine origins).

I have hope in Africans. Several countries excepted (such as your place of birth, the world capital of shameless, visible corruption), you generally can get your contracts enforced, and people are honest (if you are honest) and entrepreneurial. Most encouragingly, this time the change is coming from the top (dictators attempting to do a Pinochet) so the continent's fastest growing places might well avoid the fate of China where bottoms-up change (even if driven by the CCP) has meant you keep bureaucrats in place who will engage in classic currency manipulation and trade controls, money printing and so on. What I have seen in Rwanda for the first time (and its most visible sign is the massive switch to everything British and the joining of the Commonwealth) is an insistence by government officials on thorough honesty whilst on the job. Very promising.

I would reduce this 50 year horizon to 20. Change can happen very fast with the right leaders. Chile went from third world country to Western Europe living standards within 15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also add that Tunisia is not black Africa. Tunisia is part of the Middle East, just like Morocco, Algeria and the other "Arab" countries. These countries have extensive links with Islam and sophisticated Islamic networks. Much like France will fall in a few decades, they were doomed from the start. The Tunisia story is a repeat of the Iranian revolution and the Saudis are shaking in their palaces, because they know it's coming to them soon. It stems from the Middle Eastern government method: a pro-Western leader who publicly appears very anti-US, pro-Islam and privately acts like any other emerging market politician (like the Saudis begging the US to bomb Iran). This inevitably backfires as the brainwashed population eventually decides Islam > Government and lets the mollahs take over.

There are no such leaders in Africa for now. Looking at Kagame, he was careful to make his population come on board with his British plans, and made it a point of national pride that this be the African country of traders, complete with cricket played in the streets and driving on the left. He cleverly turned the "anti-colonialist" African mindset against specifically the French (not a bad thing :D) and set English and capitalism as "the modern African way". This is why he will succeed, at least if he's not invaded before his country is wealthy enough to have decent national defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L-C, what you call pragmatism is simple politics. With the cards you are dealt, you play the best hand possible. You must remember that a large number of CCP politicians are hardcore communists fighting every reform tooth and nail. They want China to go back to its Maoist days. Against this you have Deng Xiao Ping's faction (including current leadership) who is trying to handle the extraordinary changes brought about by DXP.

It's helpful to view the Chinese actions through the lens of pragmatism. For example, their military build-up is not necessarily preparing for an invasion of the US (which they would have nothing to benefit from) but about protecting their trade routes in Asia and putting forward a sufficient display of strength to dissuade their neighbours from seizing disputed territory. If US-China confrontation there is, it will be over Taiwan, not Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you'd say their recent progress is more about the DXP style vs classical China rather than the latter loosening the stranglehold due to pragmatism ("guess we need some production")? That might be a better scenario, though it still sounds volatile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Optimistic indeed, but as far as we (commodity traders) are concerned it's already produced fairly visible, meaningful change (at least as far as our trades are concerned). We're even considering investing in assets there (e.g. setting up a few modern farms diversifies your supply from the Southern Cone or Ukraine origins).

I have hope in Africans. Several countries excepted (such as your place of birth, the world capital of shameless, visible corruption), you generally can get your contracts enforced, and people are honest (if you are honest) and entrepreneurial. Most encouragingly, this time the change is coming from the top (dictators attempting to do a Pinochet) so the continent's fastest growing places might well avoid the fate of China where bottoms-up change (even if driven by the CCP) has meant you keep bureaucrats in place who will engage in classic currency manipulation and trade controls, money printing and so on. What I have seen in Rwanda for the first time (and its most visible sign is the massive switch to everything British and the joining of the Commonwealth) is an insistence by government officials on thorough honesty whilst on the job. Very promising.

I would reduce this 50 year horizon to 20. Change can happen very fast with the right leaders. Chile went from third world country to Western Europe living standards within 15.

Actually, I would say that Nigeria, while overall a terrible, primitive country in many ways, is witnessing the possibility of a "return" to its pre-1978 "wealth."

There's more to say about this, but it will have to wait till the weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would also add that Tunisia is not black Africa. Tunisia is part of the Middle East, just like Morocco, Algeria and the other "Arab" countries. These countries have extensive links with Islam and sophisticated Islamic networks. Much like France will fall in a few decades, they were doomed from the start. The Tunisia story is a repeat of the Iranian revolution and the Saudis are shaking in their palaces, because they know it's coming to them soon. It stems from the Middle Eastern government method: a pro-Western leader who publicly appears very anti-US, pro-Islam and privately acts like any other emerging market politician (like the Saudis begging the US to bomb Iran). This inevitably backfires as the brainwashed population eventually decides Islam > Government and lets the mollahs take over.

There are no such leaders in Africa for now. Looking at Kagame, he was careful to make his population come on board with his British plans, and made it a point of national pride that this be the African country of traders, complete with cricket played in the streets and driving on the left. He cleverly turned the "anti-colonialist" African mindset against specifically the French (not a bad thing :D) and set English and capitalism as "the modern African way". This is why he will succeed, at least if he's not invaded before his country is wealthy enough to have decent national defence.

The arrival of the British and French in West Africa temporarily halted the spread of Islam "downwards" from North Africa. As a result, Nigeria, Sudan -- and a few of the other countries in that just-below-the-Sahara belt -- have a largely or totally Moslem Arabized-North and a Westernized (Christian/secular) or animist South. With the end of British colonialism, the Nigerian Islamists (see the jihad of Usman Dan Fodio) promised to continue their mission to dip the Koran in the Atlantic Ocean.

Almost 100% of the Nigerians you come in contact with in Western universities and workplaces are Southerners. The Moslem Northerners, typically backward-looking, have held power in one respect or another since the "independence" of these countries. In the Sudan, until 2005, it was 40 years of war. In Nigeria, there has been one major "Civil" war, a dozen coups, hundreds of pogroms and skirmishes, and one major political crisis threatening secession (the June 12 struggle).

Hearing this, the typical response of the rational Westerner is: these are tribes fighting, what else is new? And that is a valid position. What is not mentioned by the Western Leftist media is that some of these tribes are more advanced than others and are laboring under a kind of "internal imperialism." It took the emergence of Kagame's Tutsis (against the Western Left's persistent efforts to demonize them as racial supremacists) to reveal the kind of facts that had long been hidden from view.

So, even here, there's more than meets the eye. But, I will address these issues in a little more detail later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note in reference to the initial post:

This sort of sliding an insult past your host is as much the action of juvenile delinquent putting one over on his teacher as anything else.

Lang Lang (or the ChiCom propagandists?) counted on the Americans' goodwill and ignorance of the meaning of the piece to get away with it.

It was rude and childish and only an even more dishonest, craven, childish leadership allows it to stick as an insult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That might be meaningless. When French officials are honored abroad, "La Marseillaise" is played, even though it makes reference to "So that impure blood - Waters our furrows!" - which in the historical context refers to the blood of soldiers of other European countries. It could very well be that the song is popular without any reference to its original context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That might be meaningless. When French officials are honored abroad, "La Marseillaise" is played, even though it makes reference to "So that impure blood - Waters our furrows!" - which in the historical context refers to the blood of soldiers of other European countries. It could very well be that the song is popular without any reference to its original context.
Not likely. In the case of "The Marseillaise," it is often the hosts that are playing it, as in the case of Olympics. And The M is the national anthem of France and the reference to enemies is both general and in the context of self-defense -- i.e. "our furrows." This is a song that includes references to a specific enemy, the U.S., which never attacked China, in which country and in whose President's home this educated and patriotic Chinese musician chose to play it and, as it was published in the program, the Chinese censors saw and let stand. Again, I consider it an insult to Obama, not to me and, although I do view it as an intended subtle slight to the U.S., I'm not so much bothered by it as disgusted with my ignoramus President and his equally ignorant, though equally pretentious and sycophantic staff. He's just a disgrace to the office, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who displayed bad taste were those in the Obama administration who chose Lang Lang to represent China. Lang Lang is a disgrace to the art of the piano. He is a clown who does not see music from the greatest composers that ever lived as heroic achievements that lift humans but as a show to entertain with grimaces and "funny" brow raises. There are many very talented and much better pianists who could have done the job, not least the graceful and musical Yuja Wang ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36O4mjKQQrw showcases Pollini-esque control and subtlety, and she was only 18!).

I expected nothing more from the boars that currently rule over Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites