Human Customs move slowly but I do think the desire for boys over girls have been reduced in the last 10-20 years because 1) the increased dowry demands from men's family 2) the moving away from rural/farms into the urban/cities. I have started hearing more and more Chinese people in the cities looking to give birth to a daughter. The reality these days from my personal family in the US is that the women of the family takes care (look after them) of the elderly parents a lot more then the men.

Tying Mao and China One Child policy together. I heard/read that the reason China has 1.3 Billion people was because of the baby boom during Mao's reign where the party actively (like they now doing the opposite) promoted people to have more babies with slogans like "More Chinese for a stronger China" (something like that). In a way they are robbing this generation of the choices to have more then 1 child by their past mismanagement (just like they did with the economy during Mao).

With that said with the level of consumerism/capitalism (and a lack of religion) not sure even if the restrictions were lifted if at least in the urban areas (just look at Korea,Taiwan, Japan all among the lowest birth rates) many more then 2 kids (on average) would be given birth to today. The only places in the world these days with high birth rates are places still highly religious.

It is interesting that the anthropologist Ruth Benedict said in her book <<Chrysanthemum and the sword>> : The line of limitation or burden crossing a people’s life in orient culture is like a “n”, lowest when a people is very young and old enough; highest when he is an adult. Opposite in western culture it is like a “U”.

rickettyrabbit wrote:I see a few major blocks, QNMD.
First, too much investment is being misdirected into face projects and infrastructure projects that are intended only to make some individuals rich and build China's "glory". This is a serious waste of money since most of it is financed by debt. That debt has to be paid somehow, and it's being paid now in two ways:

I take it as an issue relevant to political reform.

rickettyrabbit wrote:1. Savers are being robbed because the interest rate paid on deposits is far too low - below the rate of inflation.

Interest rate is not a simple indicator. It connects closey to nation monetary policy. we can’t simply say a low interest rate below inflation rate is the rob to the savers. Actually loan interest rate is also low if the deposit interest rate low.

rickettyrabbit wrote:2. Inflation is high because the banks are printing money to finance the infrastructure, and there is more and more money chasing a limited supply of goods.

Inflation rate is more complicated than interest rate. High inflation rate from 2009 end to 2011 resulted from two drivers: importing inflation and excess money printing. Root cause of importing inflation was USD depreciate (excess USD print). Actually Federal Reserve Board printed too many dollars (much more than the amount the Congress approved) in order to save the banks of the Wall and America economy from 2009 to 2010, which also diluted the debt to other countries or individuals holding America debts or USD reserve and depreciated all America common citizens’ money. Therefore USD price of the world bulk commodities increased rapidly in that period.

Excess money printing is the other driver of China inflation. We all know RMB exchange rate pegs to a basket of currencies. When USD depreciated, in order to keep RMB exchange rate stable, what you can do is to make RMB depreciate following USD. If RMB did not depreciate, international “hot money" would rapidly rush in China capital market in order to evade USD depreciation and to share China Eco developing fruits (actually a lot of "hot money" has ruched in since 2009) and would rapidly rush out once the govt can’t support a stable exchange rate and have to enhance RMB exhange rate (appreciate to foreign currency). This would become to an aforethought looting to our national wealth. What the govt can do is to print money to make RMB depreciate as well. Of course from the other hand, it also stimulated economy (But an unexpected result is RMB was excess printed than the need).

rickettyrabbit wrote:Second, corruption is partly responsible for misdirected investment, but it is also siphoning money away from banks (bad loans) and SOEs.

As I said above, another political reform issue

rickettyrabbit wrote:Third, the balance of investment to domestic consumption is far from the ideal. Domestic consumption is very low partly because households' savings are being eroded by 1. above; and pay rates and social programs for ordinary Chinese are too low; and too much wealth is concentrated into too few hands.

Lastly, the reason for all the above: one small group has nearly ultimate power. They control the economy, the banks, the media, the courts, the army, the police, legislation and state-owned enterprise. And they are exceptionally greedy. There are 35 members of the inner circle who are wealthier than the wealthiest American senator. And the insiders and their families make up most of the billionaires in China.
Somebody posted recently that they agreed with Deng's "some will get rich before others". Frankly, that would happen anywhere with a completely fair and incorruptible system. Some are just plain better at making and amassing capital.

Agree. The biggest blocks to impair domestic consumption are uneven distribution of wealth, poor civil welfare and high housing price.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:I see a few major blocks, QNMD.
First, too much investment is being misdirected into face projects and infrastructure projects that are intended only to make some individuals rich and build China's "glory". This is a serious waste of money since most of it is financed by debt. That debt has to be paid somehow, and it's being paid now in two ways:

I take it as an issue relevant to political reform.

We agree.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:1. Savers are being robbed because the interest rate paid on deposits is far too low - below the rate of inflation.

Interest rate is not a simple indicator. It connects closey to nation monetary policy. we can’t simply say a low interest rate below inflation rate is the rob to the savers. Actually loan interest rate is also low if the deposit interest rate low.

Certainly we can. The rate is not determined by a market. It is set as a matter of policy. See below.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:2. Inflation is high because the banks are printing money to finance the infrastructure, and there is more and more money chasing a limited supply of goods.

Inflation rate is more complicated than interest rate. High inflation rate from 2009 end to 2011 resulted from two drivers: importing inflation and excess money printing. Root cause of importing inflation was USD depreciate (excess USD print). Actually Federal Reserve Board printed too many dollars (much more than the amount the Congress approved) in order to save the banks of the Wall and America economy from 2009 to 2010, which also diluted the debt to other countries or individuals holding America debts or USD reserve and depreciated all America common citizens’ money. Therefore USD price of the world bulk commodities increased rapidly in that period.

The RMB is undervalued by the Chinese government. That is a significant factor in USD depreciation. Countries that maintain artificially low currencies to bolster exports end up with trade surpluses. They end up importing inflation because they have to print money to sterilize the foreign currencies they bring in as a result of their undervalued currency and trade surplus. Again, this is under the control of the Chinese government. It's a matter of policy.

QNMD wrote:Excess money printing is the other driver of China inflation. We all know RMB exchange rate pegs to a basket of currencies. When USD depreciated, in order to keep RMB exchange rate stable, what you can do is to make RMB depreciate following USD. If RMB did not depreciate, international “hot money" would rapidly rush in China capital market in order to evade USD depreciation and to share China Eco developing fruits (actually a lot of "hot money" has ruched in since 2009) and would rapidly rush out once the govt can’t support a stable exchange rate and have to enhance RMB exhange rate (appreciate to foreign currency). This would become to an aforethought looting to our national wealth. What the govt can do is to print money to make RMB depreciate as well. Of course from the other hand, it also stimulated economy (But an unexpected result is RMB was excess printed than the need).

See above. Let the currency float. Problem solved. Of course, advantage lost, too. In the end, it's a matter of policy.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:Second, corruption is partly responsible for misdirected investment, but it is also siphoning money away from banks (bad loans) and SOEs.

As I said above, another political reform issue

We agree.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:Third, the balance of investment to domestic consumption is far from the ideal. Domestic consumption is very low partly because households' savings are being eroded by 1. above; and pay rates and social programs for ordinary Chinese are too low; and too much wealth is concentrated into too few hands.

Lastly, the reason for all the above: one small group has nearly ultimate power. They control the economy, the banks, the media, the courts, the army, the police, legislation and state-owned enterprise. And they are exceptionally greedy. There are 35 members of the inner circle who are wealthier than the wealthiest American senator. And the insiders and their families make up most of the billionaires in China.
Somebody posted recently that they agreed with Deng's "some will get rich before others". Frankly, that would happen anywhere with a completely fair and incorruptible system. Some are just plain better at making and amassing capital.

Agree. The biggest blocks to impair domestic consumption are uneven distribution of wealth, poor civil welfare and high housing price.

I think we agree on the most important elements.

QNMD wrote:And I'd like to raise a discussing topic: if Mao decided to open China's market and welcome foreign investment to China like Deng did, would it succeed on that time?

I often thought of this as its an interesting and complex topic.

Firstly one must consider WHY America chose to ignore Mao and support the Nationalists. Stalin was drawing an Iron Curtin over Europe and as Mao was communist America had no other choice, did they?

rickettyrabbit wrote:Certainly we can. The rate is not determined by a market. It is set as a matter of policy. See below.

Interest rate is never a market thing. Federal Reserve Board adjusts market interest rate thru printing public debt or money. America people clearly know that.

rickettyrabbit wrote:The RMB is undervalued by the Chinese government. That is a significant factor in USD depreciation. Countries that maintain artificially low currencies to bolster exports end up with trade surpluses. They end up importing inflation because they have to print money to sterilize the foreign currencies they bring in as a result of their undervalued currency and trade surplus. Again, this is under the control of the Chinese government. It's a matter of policy.

RMB undervalue is not the cause of USD depreciation. Firstly “RMB undervalue” is not a recent happened thing. All previous US presidents know it well that RMB appreciating is helpless to change US trade deficit Cos when RMB appreciates and export decreases, other developing countries would replace China exporter role to US immediately. Clear to say: US govt don’t want RMB to appreciate especially now, you know the reason! As I said, the root cause of USD depreciation is excess money printing (QE1/2/3). Two purposes: 1 save the banks in the Wall. In this financial crisis, many banks are almost bankrupt. Govt printed a lot of money to help these banks out and expect they can loan this money out in low interest rate to stimulate atrophied investment and consumption. But greedy bankers utilized the money to supplement their bank capitals and are busy to distribute bonus. Huge lash! 2 remove self Eco crisis to other countries holding US public debts and USD reserve by printing more USD. It is absolute irresponsible behavior. (Before QE3, EU is number one irresponsible, US occupied number 2. who knows after QE3)

rickettyrabbit wrote:See above. Let the currency float. Problem solved. Of course, advantage lost, too. In the end, it's a matter of policy.

You not understand what I said, let’s image after adopting currency float and assume 7 RMB=1USD at the beginning. Once USD depreciated for US excess money printing, international hot money would buy in RMB to evade USD depreciation risk and they would invest these RMB to China stock market which would push average stock price increased 10% (assume). As per free market rules, RMB would appreciate to USD. Let’s assume RMB appreciated 20%, be 5.8RMB=1USD. At this moment, the hot money immediately sold out holding stocks and exchanged the money to USD, what happened? In a short time they earned 10% stock profit+20% foreign currency trading profit (times of 20% if utilizing the Financial tools) =30% profit rate. Who is the loser? China adopting so-called float currency!

tihZ_hO wrote:

QNMD wrote:And I'd like to raise a discussing topic: if Mao decided to open China's market and welcome foreign investment to China like Deng did, would it succeed on that time?

I often thought of this as its an interesting and complex topic.

Firstly one must consider WHY America chose to ignore Mao and support the Nationalists. Stalin was drawing an Iron Curtin over Europe and as Mao was communist America had no other choice, did they?

Ideology serves national interest. But sometimes ideology can damage national interest. Even if Mao want to do what Deng did, for civil political environment is not prepared he would lose. Even when Deng made Eco reform decision, he also met the big challenge from other members of the leadership. No mention of Mao’s time. At Mao’s time, reform will be regarded by most people as leaning to west (the capitalism) and it will destroy the base of nation unity. Definitely it will not succeed.

From outer political environment, China is under the double stresses of Soviet Russia and America. Leaning to any will be harmful to nation interest, no mention to China still need Soviet Russia help. So the best way is keep distance enough with two, but more distance to the west.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:Certainly we can. The rate is not determined by a market. It is set as a matter of policy. See below.

Interest rate is never a market thing. Federal Reserve Board adjusts market interest rate thru printing public debt or money. America people clearly know that.

I agree - I should have applied that comment to the currency rather than only the interest rate.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:The RMB is undervalued by the Chinese government. That is a significant factor in USD depreciation. Countries that maintain artificially low currencies to bolster exports end up with trade surpluses. They end up importing inflation because they have to print money to sterilize the foreign currencies they bring in as a result of their undervalued currency and trade surplus. Again, this is under the control of the Chinese government. It's a matter of policy.

RMB undervalue is not the cause of USD depreciation. Firstly “RMB undervalue” is not a recent happened thing. All previous US presidents know it well that RMB appreciating is helpless to change US trade deficit Cos when RMB appreciates and export decreases, other developing countries would replace China exporter role to US immediately. Clear to say: US govt don’t want RMB to appreciate especially now, you know the reason! As I said, the root cause of USD depreciation is excess money printing (QE1/2/3). Two purposes: 1 save the banks in the Wall. In this financial crisis, many banks are almost bankrupt. Govt printed a lot of money to help these banks out and expect they can loan this money out in low interest rate to stimulate atrophied investment and consumption. But greedy bankers utilized the money to supplement their bank capitals and are busy to distribute bonus. Huge lash! 2 remove self Eco crisis to other countries holding US public debts and USD reserve by printing more USD. It is absolute irresponsible behavior. (Before QE3, EU is number one irresponsible, US occupied number 2. who knows after QE3)

I disagree that the US does not want China to appreciate the RMB. And your take on QE by the US as the driver of dollar depreciation is partly correct, but there are two often-overlooked factors.

First, China applied more economic stimulus during 2009/10, as a percentage of GDP, than the US did in the same period.

Second, most ignore the status of the USD as an international reserve currency. There is a huge demand for USD, and resulting capital inflows to the US as a result of countries' hedging their own currency by holding USD. This actually leaves the US in the position where it has to print money just to avoid shortages of USD and appreciation of the dollar and/or increases in interest rates. It needs low interest rates to recover from the recession.

There's no doubt that the US has been irresponsible, though, in relying excessively on debt to keep its rate of GDP growth higher than it should have been. I blame the US, not China, for the mess the US is in. They had choices and chose wrongly. But China is exacerbating the problem for its own reasons. (What nation doesn't act in its own interest? Show me one and I'll show you a failed state. )

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:See above. Let the currency float. Problem solved. Of course, advantage lost, too. In the end, it's a matter of policy.

You not understand what I said, let’s image after adopting currency float and assume 7 RMB=1USD at the beginning. Once USD depreciated for US excess money printing, international hot money would buy in RMB to evade USD depreciation risk and they would invest these RMB to China stock market which would push average stock price increased 10% (assume). As per free market rules, RMB would appreciate to USD. Let’s assume RMB appreciated 20%, be 5.8RMB=1USD. At this moment, the hot money immediately sold out holding stocks and exchanged the money to USD, what happened? In a short time they earned 10% stock profit+20% foreign currency trading profit (times of 20% if utilizing the Financial tools) =30% profit rate. Who is the loser? China adopting so-called float currency!

I agree that China will lose by floating its currency. It has benefited from surpluses, jobs, GDP growth and internal investment by running persistent surpluses bolstered by an under-valued currency. But no country can run surpluses indefinitely without bankrupting its trading partners and causing them to default on its debts to them. It's simple arithmetic. And running surpluses persistently causes the exact problems we're seeing in China - inflation and crowding out domestic consumption - thus making the country more and more dependent on external conditions. And doing so while fuelling GDP growth through investment exacerbates the problems of inflation, and robs Chinese of household savings that could bolster domestic spending.

But the profits for the already excessively rich have to come from somewhere. I read that the average wage for Foxconn workers at iPad/iPhone factories was 51 cents per hour in October 2010, probably after deductions for food and shelter, but it's still pitifully low. Does China's labour policy make sense at wages like that?

It's a policy issue, but as I said in an earlier post, not one on which I hold much hope for reform. The rich don't suddenly decide to give up their advantages for the better or society. It's true with the 1% in the USA, and it's true with the .00000001% in China.

Meanwhile, the world economy is headed for the place the baby girl was found.

rickettyrabbit wrote:I disagree that the US does not want China to appreciate the RMB. And your take on QE by the US as the driver of dollar depreciation is partly correct, but there are two often-overlooked factors.

I know US president candidates always speak to his constituency that he will press China to appreciate RMB if he won. Believe me, at least Obama don’t want it now. It is because no president want one more problem about high inflation besides high unemployment. you know RMB appreciating will enhance the price of commodities importing from China, e.g. iphone, ipod, laptop,clothes, shoes....

rickettyrabbit wrote:First, China applied more economic stimulus during 2009/10, as a percentage of GDP, than the US did in the same period.

True. But RMB is not big international reserve currency. And this didn't take bad impact to other countries.

rickettyrabbit wrote:Second, most ignore the status of the USD as an international reserve currency. There is a huge demand for USD, and resulting capital inflows to the US as a result of countries' hedging their own currency by holding USD. This actually leaves the US in the position where it has to print money just to avoid shortages of USD and appreciation of the dollar and/or increases in interest rates. It needs low interest rates to recover from the recession.

The world is still in Eco crisis, which country would has more demand for USD? International reserve currency would never be the reason.

rickettyrabbit wrote:There's no doubt that the US has been irresponsible, though, in relying excessively on debt to keep its rate of GDP growth higher than it should have been. I blame the US, not China, for the mess the US is in. They had choices and chose wrongly. But China is exacerbating the problem for its own reasons. (What nation doesn't act in its own interest? Show me one and I'll show you a failed state. )

e.g. Is it counted in that China kept RMB exchange rate stable which helped other countries out in 1997 Asia Financial Crisis?

rickettyrabbit wrote:I agree that China will lose by floating its currency. It has benefited from surpluses, jobs, GDP growth and internal investment by running persistent surpluses bolstered by an under-valued currency. But no country can run surpluses indefinitely without bankrupting its trading partners and causing them to default on its debts to them. It's simple arithmetic. And running surpluses persistently causes the exact problems we're seeing in China - inflation and crowding out domestic consumption - thus making the country more and more dependent on external conditions. And doing so while fuelling GDP growth through investment exacerbates the problems of inflation, and robs Chinese of household savings that could bolster domestic spending.

In this time, the world has already been a “small” village and the Eco has been globalized. China is playing the role of world manufacturing factory. Persistent surplus is normal. Moreover many of America big company directly set their branches in China and provide their commodity to China and other countries’ consumers. But it would not be counted in America’s export. Opposite it was counted in China’s export. So it is not fair to say that persistent surplus of one country is bad to his trading partner. You are right surplus caused inflation, while comparing with the unemployment, which one would you choose?

rickettyrabbit wrote:It's a policy issue, but as I said in an earlier post, not one on which I hold much hope for reform. The rich don't suddenly decide to give up their advantages for the better or society. It's true with the 1% in the USA, and it's true with the .00000001% in China.

I am a little more affirmative than you although only a little.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:I disagree that the US does not want China to appreciate the RMB. And your take on QE by the US as the driver of dollar depreciation is partly correct, but there are two often-overlooked factors.

I know US president candidates always speak to his constituency that he will press China to appreciate RMB if he won. Believe me, at least Obama don’t want it now. It is because no president want one more problem about high inflation besides high unemployment. you know RMB appreciating will enhance the price of commodities importing from China, e.g. iphone, ipod, laptop,clothes, shoes....

Then I guess it comes down to what you think Obama wants to avoid.

I think he wants to avoid a trade war started by aggressive trade restrictions to force China to increase the value of the RMB. I don't think he (or the administration) would shed a single tear if the RMB raised by 25%. I think they'd claim a political victory. Certainly some of that would be bravado, and it would certainly cause short-term pain in the US. But it would cause a lot more in China if companies actually believed it was a permanent change. Some of the jobs that have left the US would come back. Certainly not all of them, and some would leave China for other low-wage countries.

I have clients who manufacture in China, and to them, China offers cost advantages, but if the value of the RMB went up 25%, I think they'd bring some of their manufacturing back to North America. The wages here, of course, are much higher. But the overall efficiency is also much higher. They manufacture electronics in Canada and the USA, and their costs are only marginally higher than in their Chinese plants in spite of the much lower wages in China. But recognize that they do not make cheap consumer goods with high volume runs, but much more complex industrial electronics with much smaller overall markets.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:First, China applied more economic stimulus during 2009/10, as a percentage of GDP, than the US did in the same period.

True. But RMB is not big international reserve currency. And this didn't take bad impact to other countries.

True, the RMB isn't yet a reserve currency (for lots of reasons) but its value against the USD is affected by how much is being "printed", and China has been printing at a furious rate, too. Big stimulus spending in China (much of it leaked into unproductive areas), and lots of RMB printed to offset the trade surplus. It's a very inflationary strategy.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:Second, most ignore the status of the USD as an international reserve currency. There is a huge demand for USD, and resulting capital inflows to the US as a result of countries' hedging their own currency by holding USD. This actually leaves the US in the position where it has to print money just to avoid shortages of USD and appreciation of the dollar and/or increases in interest rates. It needs low interest rates to recover from the recession.

The world is still in Eco crisis, which country would has more demand for USD? International reserve currency would never be the reason.

Most people underestimate the demand for USD. The Euro troubles have greatly increased the demand for USD as businesses and countries dump Euros for USD. Check out Noriel Roubini's "The way forward" - it's available on line. He describes this phenomenon quite well.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:There's no doubt that the US has been irresponsible, though, in relying excessively on debt to keep its rate of GDP growth higher than it should have been. I blame the US, not China, for the mess the US is in. They had choices and chose wrongly. But China is exacerbating the problem for its own reasons. (What nation doesn't act in its own interest? Show me one and I'll show you a failed state. )

e.g. Is it counted in that China kept RMB exchange rate stable which helped other countries out in 1997 Asia Financial Crisis?

I'm sure it counted with the other Asian countries. That's one of the reasons why some of them may be receptive to a pan-Asian currency bloc using the RMB as a regional reserve currency . . . of course only after China increases transparency and reforms its banking sector, but I suspect that's where China is headed. Many Chinese officials have called for the RMB to become a reserve currency . . . but they haven't yet acknowledged the changes they'd have to make for that to be seriously considered by their neighbours.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:I agree that China will lose by floating its currency. It has benefited from surpluses, jobs, GDP growth and internal investment by running persistent surpluses bolstered by an under-valued currency. But no country can run surpluses indefinitely without bankrupting its trading partners and causing them to default on its debts to them. It's simple arithmetic. And running surpluses persistently causes the exact problems we're seeing in China - inflation and crowding out domestic consumption - thus making the country more and more dependent on external conditions. And doing so while fuelling GDP growth through investment exacerbates the problems of inflation, and robs Chinese of household savings that could bolster domestic spending.

In this time, the world has already been a “small” village and the Eco has been globalized. China is playing the role of world manufacturing factory. Persistent surplus is normal. Moreover many of America big company directly set their branches in China and provide their commodity to China and other countries’ consumers. But it would not be counted in America’s export. Opposite it was counted in China’s export. So it is not fair to say that persistent surplus of one country is bad to his trading partner. You are right surplus caused inflation, while comparing with the unemployment, which one would you choose?

It doesn't matter whether a commodity is sold through an international supplier. If it comes out of the USA, it's a US export and it's counted.

And a persistent surplus is not normal. What is normal is for the currency float to cancel out trade imbalances. But as we know, the RMB does not float. It is managed for China's strategic advantage. Even Germany, which runs persistent surpluses but trades everything in Euros, and therefore can't use currency float to erase its surplus, has the tools at its disposal with taxation, government benefits, etc. to erase its surplus. But it didn't, somehow feeling that running a surplus is a sign of success or virtue. And as a result, its success is part of the reason for the problems the PIIGS are encountering.

Running persistent surpluses eventually puts your trading partners into distress and threatens to bankrupt them. It's a dangerous game, and it has repercussions at home and abroad. I don't see China doing any of the things needed to offset the negative effects of its persistent surpluses. For example, it could increase domestic spending by creating more generous pensions for retired people and other allowances for the poor. It could subsidize housing instead of lining the pockets of officials with yet another office complex or apartment complex that will sit empty with a huge price tag on it. All of these things would help to erase the surplus as long as some of China's manufacturing capacity is focused on domestic consumption rather than exports, and some of the resulting domestic spending is on imports.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:It's a policy issue, but as I said in an earlier post, not one on which I hold much hope for reform. The rich don't suddenly decide to give up their advantages for the better or society. It's true with the 1% in the USA, and it's true with the .00000001% in China.

I am a little more affirmative than you although only a little.

I hope you're right. We'd all be better off if China's prosperity were shared more evenly. Well, all except the .00000001%.

And maybe the baby wouldn't have been abandoned in the toilet!

Occupy China?

Reading "The Opium War" now. Great book!

Am I "off topic" for this thread?

Were there any abandoned babies?

tihZ_hO wrote:

QNMD wrote:

tihZ_hO wrote:It does happen more frequently, its just that its not reported, obviously. My ex told me that this is not so uncommon for baby girls to be abandoned in the woods in rural China.

I don't know why tihz is so confident "it does happen more frequently." "it is not so uncommon for baby girl to be abandoned". Anyway after I read these words, I have a picture that Chinese native is a cool-blooded native. But thinking of the people around me, my parents, friends, relatives and colleague, I say no to this. After all, I have lived in this land for 30+ years. I know well this people living here. I don't deny this case happened in China, but it is aboslutely not "Common" and not "more frequently" . As a Chinese, we hate so much those parents abondoned their baby or disable baby whatever the reason is. And in my mind, the Chinese maybe the parents most cosseting their baby in this world. I was borned in a village. I remember when i am young, one time my mother saw a news from TV that one bay was abandoned to wild place by her parents and finally was frozen to death. My mother weeped and cursed the parents go to hell. And now I saw the news I also hope the guilty parent were arrestted and sentenced a felony punishment. This is the thinking of a gerenal Chinese to baby abandoning. The parents abandoned their baby would face publishment of morality and legal in China.

Let's talk sth. about one child policy of China. In 1949, PRC established, the population is 540 mil, but after 36 years (1985), the population was doubled, sharply increased to 1,060 mil. I must say one child policy is a necessary action for China (minority native don't need follow one child policy). If not controlling the population explosive growth, it can be predicted China would have to go colonizing and expanding way in war. It would be a disaster to neighbor countries. So China gov. controlled the population. Now the policy is facing to be abolished due to population growth is under control. 5-6years ago, the people in countryside has been allowed to have two babies. And recent 2-3 year ago, "one child" parents in city also were allowed to have two babies.

As my original intention, I don't plan to reply tihz's this post. But I saw there are many misleading words in it, so I have to defend for most Chinese. few Chinese' crime should be expanded (or misleaded )to the whole native.

Tihz, you don't need call me 50 cent party again. If what I did let me like a 50 cent party, I'm happy I am.

No I won't say you are in the 50 cent party, this time, (next time who can say) because what you posted should be said, this was your experience and should be heard. While I do joke around on the forum I can be serious and there is nothing more serious than this topic.

Let me explain, my ex was born in a village in Shandong province. She also used to stay with her grandmother (who had small feet) in Harbin. She told me so many horror stories about what she personally experienced growing up, what her parents told her and what she heard from other people she knew. In addition, other Chinese I know, my ex's business partner from down Wenzhou way also reflected on how terrible it was to see a dead baby in the woods. Don't misunderstand, I am not implying that in taking a short jaunt through the woods one would be tripping over the bodies. No, but she has seen more than one or two. Of course I said it may have been a dead pig or some other animal in which she said some of the remains she saw could have been, but there were some om which there is no doubt.

This period of time in China was after some disastrous government programs in which between 25 to 40 million people starved to death. China's recovery was slow and poor people had no resources to spare, so having a girl, as I was told, was considered a disaster for some.

That was then, and now China is prosperous, however there are still many millions of Chinese people living on sustenance level with few or no resources to spare. Now that China has the one child policy, two for minorities, this issue is exasperated (see below). Please tell me why there are thousands upon thousands of girls working as prostitutes in China and overseas? For example, one famous Chinese city, Dongguan, over 50,000 girls are working as prostitutes. In other countries there are thousands, and thousands of Chinese girls also working as prostitutes (trust me I know). So chances are, the mother was a prostitute and why she didn't get an abortion, who knows?

I agree with you that not all Chinese are this way, that's the same as saying all Americans have a gun and are fat....well maybe not a good example. Many Chinese ARE shocked by this video and the thought that someone could be so cold as to let a baby die. Having said that there are also many Chinese who are indifferent to the well being of others.

Do you recall the recent video of a child being run over by a truck and then again by a van and 19 people passed by and had no reaction what so ever?? It was if that child was a dog laying there dying in the street. How do you explain this away?? Yes many Chinese were outraged by the actions of these callous people, but are they the majority or only those who happened to be heard?



One child policy

The policy is controversial both within and outside China because of the manner in which the policy has been implemented, and because of concerns about negative social consequences.[5] The policy has been implicated in an increase in forced abortions,[6] female infanticide, and underreporting[7] of female births, and has been suggested as a possible cause behind China's gender imbalance.

In most rural areas, families are allowed to apply to have a second child if the first is a girl,[18] or has a physical disability, mental illness or mental retardation.[19] Second children are subject to birth spacing (usually 3 or 4 years). Additional children will result in large fines: families violating the policy are required to pay monetary penalties and might be denied bonuses at their workplace.

Nevertheless, the US State Department,[89] the Parliament of the United Kingdom,[90] and the human rights organization Amnesty International[91] have all declared that China's family planning programs contribute to infanticide.

Link with the references as numbered above

I totally agree, one question: The grandmother, did she have small feet due to binding? and one observation, had it been a dog in the street being hit by by a truck someone would have intervened, either to take it home and rehabilitate it or to skin it and eat it.

rickpeck wrote:I totally agree, one question: The grandmother, did she have small feet due to binding? and one observation, had it been a dog in the street being hit by by a truck someone would have intervened, either to take it home and rehabilitate it or to skin it and eat it.

From binding, and my ex told me that women who had their feet bound had to keep them bound. They only unbound them to wash, which I understood not to be as often as you would think, and they absolutely reeked, she said, the smell was horrible - gagging.

Women with small feet were modest about them as well, in as much as one would be modest with being naked. Back then it was common for Chinese men to think unwrapping bound feet as erotic as well as fondling and kissing them. Well if you look at what rural Chinese eat that should have been nothing to them.

Yep, chances are a dog hit by a car would have attracted attention.

tihZ_hO wrote:Were there any abandoned babies?

I think even abandoned diapers could keep it on topic. That's what happens when supply exceeds capacity, and ... well, the proverbial hits the fan.

tihZ_hO wrote:Were there any abandoned babies?

In Canton during the British siege on the city, the Hunanese troops were steeling babies (perhaps they were abandoned, who knows?) and eating them as a cure for leprosy winch Cantonese women had given them as a cure for leporsy. This lead to the Cantonese fighting the Hunanese troops and eating them... Just a typical event with Chinese characteristics.

rickettyrabbit wrote:Then I guess it comes down to what you think Obama wants to avoid.
I think he wants to avoid a trade war started by aggressive trade restrictions to force China to increase the value of the RMB. I don't think he (or the administration) would shed a single tear if the RMB raised by 25%. I think they'd claim a political victory. Certainly some of that would be bravado, and it would certainly cause short-term pain in the US. But it would cause a lot more in China if companies actually believed it was a permanent change. Some of the jobs that have left the US would come back. Certainly not all of them, and some would leave China for other low-wage countries.
I have clients who manufacture in China, and to them, China offers cost advantages, but if the value of the RMB went up 25%, I think they'd bring some of their manufacturing back to North America. The wages here, of course, are much higher. But the overall efficiency is also much higher. They manufacture electronics in Canada and the USA, and their costs are only marginally higher than in their Chinese plants in spite of the much lower wages in China. But recognize that they do not make cheap consumer goods with high volume runs, but much more complex industrial electronics with much smaller overall markets.

RMB appreciating = Job opportunity? I don't think so. Still take your client as example. If he is labour intensive company, no doubt he would choose to transfer his factory to other low-wage countries. Because efficiency can be enhanced by training, discipline and standard procedure, but wage….frankly to say, it is impossible to cut. But if he is capital intensive, he could transfer back to North America, but job positions provided are quite limited. So don’t look forward to RMB appreciating can take job opportunities to America people. It doesn't work and definitely can aggravate people’s living burdens.

rickettyrabbit wrote:True, the RMB isn't yet a reserve currency (for lots of reasons) but its value against the USD is affected by how much is being "printed", and China has been printing at a furious rate, too. Big stimulus spending in China (much of it leaked into unproductive areas), and lots of RMB printed to offset the trade surplus. It's a very inflationary strategy.

If printing RMB impacted the value to USD, as a result RMB would depreciate to USD. Opposite we noticed RMB appreciated. what happened????

rickettyrabbit wrote:Most people underestimate the demand for USD. The Euro troubles have greatly increased the demand for USD as businesses and countries dump Euros for USD. Check out Noriel Roubini's "The way forward" - it's available on line. He describes this phenomenon quite well.

Hope you are not angry if I doubt the author's academic independence especially when I notice he worked for White House and the U.S. Treasury from 1998 to 2000. I don’t deny Euro have a more USD demand for Euro’s fierce waving price. But how many additional demand is a key question.

rickettyrabbit wrote:I'm sure it counted with the other Asian countries. That's one of the reasons why some of them may be receptive to a pan-Asian currency bloc using the RMB as a regional reserve currency . . . of course only after China increases transparency and reforms its banking sector, but I suspect that's where China is headed. Many Chinese officials have called for the RMB to become a reserve currency . . . but they haven't yet acknowledged the changes they'd have to make for that to be seriously considered by their neighbours.

We reform bank sector? Isn’t it America govt's job?

rickettyrabbit wrote:It doesn't matter whether a commodity is sold through an international supplier. If it comes out of the USA, it's a US export and it's counted.

And a persistent surplus is not normal. What is normal is for the currency float to cancel out trade imbalances. But as we know, the RMB does not float. It is managed for China's strategic advantage. Even Germany, which runs persistent surpluses but trades everything in Euros, and therefore can't use currency float to erase its surplus, has the tools at its disposal with taxation, government benefits, etc. to erase its surplus. But it didn't, somehow feeling that running a surplus is a sign of success or virtue. And as a result, its success is part of the reason for the problems the PIIGS are encountering.

Running persistent surpluses eventually puts your trading partners into distress and threatens to bankrupt them. It's a dangerous game, and it has repercussions at home and abroad. I don't see China doing any of the things needed to offset the negative effects of its persistent surpluses. For example, it could increase domestic spending by creating more generous pensions for retired people and other allowances for the poor. It could subsidize housing instead of lining the pockets of officials with yet another office complex or apartment complex that will sit empty with a huge price tag on it. All of these things would help to erase the surplus as long as some of China's manufacturing capacity is focused on domestic consumption rather than exports, and some of the resulting domestic spending is on imports.

Firstly, America Congress seems not welcome China company's invest so much. They like to set as many as possible obstacles in the way, opposite to what China’s attitude to foreign investment. e.g. raise out nation interest….The truth is that the deal just damaged the interest of some conscript fathers. Their interest represented the NATION interest? So if China company can’t smoothly invest as a normal M&A business, but what about If it comes out of the USA, it's a US export and it's counted.
Second. If America think China imported too less from them, pls. America govt loose the discriminating export limition of hi tech to China. We would like to buy what we truly need, even at a higher price, but don’t simply say “No” to China and at the same time to blame that Why China not import? It is self-contradictory!

rickettyrabbit wrote:
And maybe the baby wouldn't have been abandoned in the toilet!

I think we should turn the topic back to the human common problem: baby abandoning and I must repeat my opinion: in China it is not frequent and the probability is equally low as other countries’.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:Then I guess it comes down to what you think Obama wants to avoid.
I think he wants to avoid a trade war started by aggressive trade restrictions to force China to increase the value of the RMB. I don't think he (or the administration) would shed a single tear if the RMB raised by 25%. I think they'd claim a political victory. Certainly some of that would be bravado, and it would certainly cause short-term pain in the US. But it would cause a lot more in China if companies actually believed it was a permanent change. Some of the jobs that have left the US would come back. Certainly not all of them, and some would leave China for other low-wage countries.
I have clients who manufacture in China, and to them, China offers cost advantages, but if the value of the RMB went up 25%, I think they'd bring some of their manufacturing back to North America. The wages here, of course, are much higher. But the overall efficiency is also much higher. They manufacture electronics in Canada and the USA, and their costs are only marginally higher than in their Chinese plants in spite of the much lower wages in China. But recognize that they do not make cheap consumer goods with high volume runs, but much more complex industrial electronics with much smaller overall markets.

RMB appreciating = Job opportunity? I don't think so. Still take your client as example. If he is labour intensive company, no doubt he would choose to transfer his factory to other low-wage countries. Because efficiency can be enhanced by training, discipline and standard procedure, but wage….frankly to say, it is impossible to cut. But if he is capital intensive, he could transfer back to North America, but job positions provided are quite limited. So don’t look forward to RMB appreciating can take job opportunities to America people. It doesn't work and definitely can aggravate people’s living burdens.

That is undoubtedly true in some cases, but certainly not in my client's business.

There are many businesses that are questioning their decision to set up shop in China not because of increasing costs in China, but because it costs more to operate overseas than some anticipated. The cost advantage is not nearly as big in some cases as people had hoped. And appreciation of the RMB is already driving some jobs back to the USA.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:True, the RMB isn't yet a reserve currency (for lots of reasons) but its value against the USD is affected by how much is being "printed", and China has been printing at a furious rate, too. Big stimulus spending in China (much of it leaked into unproductive areas), and lots of RMB printed to offset the trade surplus. It's a very inflationary strategy.

If printing RMB impacted the value to USD, as a result RMB would depreciate to USD. Opposite we noticed RMB appreciated. what happened????

Are you forgetting that the government manages the RMB to keep it low, but does edge it up to avoid too much political pressure from the US?

It won't have to worry as much about that in the past few months, though, as money is now flowing out of China and the surplus is shrinking. This is a positive development.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:Most people underestimate the demand for USD. The Euro troubles have greatly increased the demand for USD as businesses and countries dump Euros for USD. Check out Noriel Roubini's "The way forward" - it's available on line. He describes this phenomenon quite well.

QNMD wrote:Hope you are not angry if I doubt the author's academic independence especially when I notice he worked for White House and the U.S. Treasury from 1998 to 2000. I don’t deny Euro have a more USD demand for Euro’s fierce waving price. But how many additional demand is a key question.

Can you find a top ranked economist who hasn't had contracts for some government?

I feel quite comfortable with Roubini's objectivity.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:I'm sure it counted with the other Asian countries. That's one of the reasons why some of them may be receptive to a pan-Asian currency bloc using the RMB as a regional reserve currency . . . of course only after China increases transparency and reforms its banking sector, but I suspect that's where China is headed. Many Chinese officials have called for the RMB to become a reserve currency . . . but they haven't yet acknowledged the changes they'd have to make for that to be seriously considered by their neighbours.

We reform bank sector? Isn’t it America govt's job?

If China wants to internationalize the RMB, it will have to reform its banking and financial systems, as has been written by many economists, including Chinese economists. Of course, if it doesn't want to gain the advantages of the RMB as a reserve currency, it doesn't have to.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:It doesn't matter whether a commodity is sold through an international supplier. If it comes out of the USA, it's a US export and it's counted.

And a persistent surplus is not normal. What is normal is for the currency float to cancel out trade imbalances. But as we know, the RMB does not float. It is managed for China's strategic advantage. Even Germany, which runs persistent surpluses but trades everything in Euros, and therefore can't use currency float to erase its surplus, has the tools at its disposal with taxation, government benefits, etc. to erase its surplus. But it didn't, somehow feeling that running a surplus is a sign of success or virtue. And as a result, its success is part of the reason for the problems the PIIGS are encountering.

Running persistent surpluses eventually puts your trading partners into distress and threatens to bankrupt them. It's a dangerous game, and it has repercussions at home and abroad. I don't see China doing any of the things needed to offset the negative effects of its persistent surpluses. For example, it could increase domestic spending by creating more generous pensions for retired people and other allowances for the poor. It could subsidize housing instead of lining the pockets of officials with yet another office complex or apartment complex that will sit empty with a huge price tag on it. All of these things would help to erase the surplus as long as some of China's manufacturing capacity is focused on domestic consumption rather than exports, and some of the resulting domestic spending is on imports.

Firstly, America Congress seems not welcome China company's invest so much.

Why should it? China does not welcome American investment unless it follows restrictive Chinese rules. I'm sure if China provided reciprocal investment terms, there would be no problem. And reciprocal access to each others markets.

QNMD wrote:They like to set as many as possible obstacles in the way, opposite to what China’s attitude to foreign investment. e.g. raise out nation interest….

I hope you're joking about that. American companies have much less access to the Chinese market than Chinese companies have to the American market.

Foreign companies are heavily restricted from investing in China. What is wrong with foreign countries being restrictive to Chinese investment when China is restrictive to foreign investment?

QNMD wrote:The truth is that the deal just damaged the interest of some conscript fathers. Their interest represented the NATION interest? So if China company can’t smoothly invest as a normal M&A business, but what about If it comes out of the USA, it's a US export and it's counted.
Second. If America think China imported too less from them, pls. America govt loose the discriminating export limition of hi tech to China. We would like to buy what we truly need, even at a higher price, but don’t simply say “No” to China and at the same time to blame that Why China not import? It is self-contradictory!

I would do exactly the same thing as the US has done. China does not provide reciprocal protection for intellectual property. Why expose technology that was expensive to develop and still has lots of market life remaining to the Chinese counterfeiters? It's suicide. China is infamous in developed countries for its turning a blind eye to Chinese counterfeiting, and for China's issuing Chinese patents that would violate patent rights in most western countries. And for stacking the courts in favour of Chinese issued patents so that the success rate for protecting Chinese issued patents is ~ 99%. Please don't tell me you think that is a good recipe for China having the right to buy high tech from western countries.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:And maybe the baby wouldn't have been abandoned in the toilet!

I think we should turn the topic back to the human common problem: baby abandoning and I must repeat my opinion: in China it is not frequent and the probability is equally low as other countries’.

I don't know if it's equal, but there's no doubt that it happens in every country far too often.

rickettyrabbit wrote:That is undoubtedly true in some cases, but certainly not in my client's business.

There are many businesses that are questioning their decision to set up shop in China not because of increasing costs in China, but because it costs more to operate overseas than some anticipated. The cost advantage is not nearly as big in some cases as people had hoped. And appreciation of the RMB is already driving some jobs back to the USA.

What is the weight of you reminded “Many Businesses”? As I know Fortune Top 500 companies still not make their decision to leave. Maybe I am wrong that they have already made decisions to transfer back and become to a charitarian to provide job oppotunities.

rickettyrabbit wrote:Are you forgetting that the government manages the RMB to keep it low, but does edge it up to avoid too much political pressure from the US?

So whatever, I am always wrong?
RMB depreciated: China govert is printing too much money, so I am wrong; RMB appreciated: China govert is printing too much money + China govert edges it up to avoid US political pressure, so again, I am wrong.
I need change my name to Wrong Man.

rickettyrabbit wrote:Can you find a top ranked economist who hasn't had contracts for some government?

I believe only two top ranked economists who hasn’t had contract for some govert in this world. One’s name is Mr. Ricketty Rabbit and the other is Mr. Wrong Man.

rickettyrabbit wrote:If China wants to internationalize the RMB, it will have to reform its banking and financial systems, as has been written by many economists, including Chinese economists. Of course, if it doesn't want to gain the advantages of the RMB as a reserve currency, it doesn't have to.

Go periodical financial crisis way? Actually “many economist including Chinese economists” have no way to avoid similar crisis happened again. So why would China choose to reform financial systems and banking as western model? Just because it is popular?

rickettyrabbit wrote:
Why should it? China does not welcome American investment unless it follows restrictive Chinese rules. I'm sure if China provided reciprocal investment terms, there would be no problem. And reciprocal access to each others markets.
I hope you're joking about that. American companies have much less access to the Chinese market than Chinese companies have to the American market.
Foreign companies are heavily restricted from investing in China. What is wrong with foreign countries being restrictive to Chinese investment when China is restrictive to foreign investment?

It’s the first time I hear that China is restrictive to foreign investment except on some industries. China local govert is GDP driven. If you have RMB 10 million to go to invest somewhere, the mayors would compete with each other to invite you for dinner. If you have RMB 100Million, state governor would fight against each other.

rickettyrabbit wrote:I would do exactly the same thing as the US has done. China does not provide reciprocal protection for intellectual property. Why expose technology that was expensive to develop and still has lots of market life remaining to the Chinese counterfeiters? It's suicide. China is infamous in developed countries for its turning a blind eye to Chinese counterfeiting, and for China's issuing Chinese patents that would violate patent rights in most western countries. And for stacking the courts in favour of Chinese issued patents so that the success rate for protecting Chinese issued patents is ~ 99%. Please don't tell me you think that is a good recipe for China having the right to buy high tech from western countries.

China companies are to buy tech, not steal tech. “BUY” means the ownership is transferred. So it’s nothing with patent right and tech protection, counterfeit. And many foreign companies want to trade their tech to China companies in a fair price. But America govt say “no” to this with the excuse the tech is related to military purpose. however nowadays how many teches can clearly separate out the civilian and the military?

QNMD wrote:China companies are to buy tech, not steal tech. “BUY” means the ownership is transferred. So it’s nothing with patent right and tech protection, counterfeit. And many foreign companies want to trade their tech to China companies in a fair price. But America govt say “no” to this with the excuse the tech is related to military purpose. however nowadays how many teches can clearly separate out the civilian and the military?

Many Chinese companies do on-line patent searches to "discover" new tech for their products. I have personal experience so please do not say this doesn't happen.

Its a "catch 22" if no patent, no protection, have patent, still no protection in China

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:That is undoubtedly true in some cases, but certainly not in my client's business.

There are many businesses that are questioning their decision to set up shop in China not because of increasing costs in China, but because it costs more to operate overseas than some anticipated. The cost advantage is not nearly as big in some cases as people had hoped. And appreciation of the RMB is already driving some jobs back to the USA.

What is the weight of you reminded “Many Businesses”? As I know Fortune Top 500 companies still not make their decision to leave. Maybe I am wrong that they have already made decisions to transfer back and become to a charitarian to provide job oppotunities.

I'm sure you know that "many are questioning" wasn't intended to mean "many have decided".

And yes, many are questioning, and some have moved back to the USA. I have seen my client's numbers, so I know that the case for being in China in some businesses is not all that strong.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:Are you forgetting that the government manages the RMB to keep it low, but does edge it up to avoid too much political pressure from the US?

So whatever, I am always wrong?
RMB depreciated: China govert is printing too much money, so I am wrong; RMB appreciated: China govert is printing too much money + China govert edges it up to avoid US political pressure, so again, I am wrong.
I need change my name to Wrong Man.

No need to change your honourable name. I'm sure you're right your share of times. Just not this time.

China holds its currency down deliberately. That's the point I was making. However, as I said last time, that seems to be less necessary now because the surplus has been eroded by money flowing out of China.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:Can you find a top ranked economist who hasn't had contracts for some government?

I believe only two top ranked economists who hasn’t had contract for some govert in this world. One’s name is Mr. Ricketty Rabbit and the other is Mr. Wrong Man.

Both Wrong men for this job.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:If China wants to internationalize the RMB, it will have to reform its banking and financial systems, as has been written by many economists, including Chinese economists. Of course, if it doesn't want to gain the advantages of the RMB as a reserve currency, it doesn't have to.

Go periodical financial crisis way? Actually “many economist including Chinese economists” have no way to avoid similar crisis happened again. So why would China choose to reform financial systems and banking as western model? Just because it is popular?

China had plans to modernize its banking and financial sector in 2005, but stopped. It was only a matter of time before it would become necessary. Now it wants to do so again so RMB can become a reserve currency.

"China hopes to allow all exporters and importers to settle their cross-border trades in the yuan by this year, the central bank said on Wednesday, as part of plans to grow the currency's international role. In a statement on its website http://www.pbc.gov.cn, the central bank said it would respond to overseas demand for the yuan to be used as a reserve currency. It added it would also allow the yuan to flow back into China more easily." To all those who claim that China is perfectly happy with the status quo, in which it is willing to peg the Renmibni to the Dollar in perpetuity, this may come as a rather unpleasant surprise, as it indicates that suddenly China is far more vocal about its intention to convert its currency to reserve status, and in the process make the dollar even more insignificant.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/china- ... e-currency

And I think Chinese investors want financial and banking reform, too. After all, how many have invested in empty apartments which are likely to remain empty until they deteriorate so far they're worthless? The reason for all this irrational apartment buying by those who already have several is that there are no better investment opportunities in China. It has notoriously bad stock markets and almost no functioning bond market. And no transparency in its financial and banking sector. Who would trust a reserve currency with those conditions? No one.

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:Why should it? China does not welcome American investment unless it follows restrictive Chinese rules. I'm sure if China provided reciprocal investment terms, there would be no problem. And reciprocal access to each others markets.
I hope you're joking about that. American companies have much less access to the Chinese market than Chinese companies have to the American market.
Foreign companies are heavily restricted from investing in China. What is wrong with foreign countries being restrictive to Chinese investment when China is restrictive to foreign investment?

It’s the first time I hear that China is restrictive to foreign investment except on some industries. China local govert is PDP driven. If you have RMB 10 million to go to invest somewhere, the mayors would compete with each other to invite you for dinner. If you have RMB 100Million, state governor would fight against each other.

The first time? Congratulations! I've heard it said that it's better the second time, though, so let me oblige you:

Unequal and discriminatory application of laws and regulations, discriminatory government procurement policies, weak protection of intellectual property and regulatory reform backsliding were all serious concerns for European businesses in China.

In just one example, Chinese carmaker Geely recently acquired Volvo in a high profile deal but foreign carmakers are limited in China to 50 per cent ownership of joint ventures with local companies, which usually require transfer of technology.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae64093e-b677 ... z1mYWVoB1j

Was it better the second time?

QNMD wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:I would do exactly the same thing as the US has done. China does not provide reciprocal protection for intellectual property. Why expose technology that was expensive to develop and still has lots of market life remaining to the Chinese counterfeiters? It's suicide. China is infamous in developed countries for its turning a blind eye to Chinese counterfeiting, and for China's issuing Chinese patents that would violate patent rights in most western countries. And for stacking the courts in favour of Chinese issued patents so that the success rate for protecting Chinese issued patents is ~ 99%. Please don't tell me you think that is a good recipe for China having the right to buy high tech from western countries.

China companies are to buy tech, not steal tech. “BUY” means the ownership is transferred. So it’s nothing with patent right and tech protection, counterfeit. And many foreign companies want to trade their tech to China companies in a fair price. But America govt say “no” to this with the excuse the tech is related to military purpose. however nowadays how many teches can clearly separate out the civilian and the military?

I'm sure China would do the same to protect a technology lead if it had one.

I know you don't want to waste your time discussing with a nincompoop, so I'll point out that you've ignored my point about China's terrible record of stealing and not protecting foreigners' intellectual property, while stacking the cards in its favour by rigging the courts to get favourable rulings within China for foreign challenges against Chinese patents. No need to debate it - I just add it so you'll feel you're not wasting time discussing with someone who is easily distracted.

Those abandoned newborns are certainly troublesome. I wonder if appreciation of the RMB would save them? What do you think?

tihZ_hO wrote:

QNMD wrote:China companies are to buy tech, not steal tech. “BUY” means the ownership is transferred. So it’s nothing with patent right and tech protection, counterfeit. And many foreign companies want to trade their tech to China companies in a fair price. But America govt say “no” to this with the excuse the tech is related to military purpose. however nowadays how many teches can clearly separate out the civilian and the military?

Many Chinese companies do on-line patent searches to "discover" new tech for their products. I have personal experience so please do not say this doesn't happen.

Its a "catch 22" if no patent, no protection, have patent, still no protection in China

What's more is that patents filed in China do not undergo the same rigorous patent searches that occur in other countries, so it is easier to get a Chinese patent, and Chinese patents may include ideas already patented in other jurisdictions. I have posted about this before.

post1658896.html?hilit=patent#p1658896

The record of foreign challenges in Chinese courts against patents filed in China is abysmal. There's something rotten here, and it's not in Denmark.

KopyKatKiller wrote:Reading "The Opium War" now. Great book!

Am I "off topic" for this thread?

no, newborn abandoned in toilet + dissertation in economic theory / opium wars = totally sensible thread

^ You left out Hamlet! . . . how the hell do you expect these topics to hang together without Shakespeare???

^

Something is rotten in China.

Another baby this time a boy (2011)

Live Newborn Baby Dumped as Dead in Garbage Bag

no comment

tihZ_hO wrote:Another baby this time a boy (2011)

Live Newborn Baby Dumped as Dead in Garbage Bag

no comment

damn

Yet another one

Afflicted newborn tossed into lavatory
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?i ... type=Metro

jerkeet wrote:Hello

That is very wrong thing,it should not be happened such as there is one necessary thing is that to educate the people and tell them it is very bad and opposite reaction before the God.

Do you think that if you don’t bring GOD into this people will not understand that it is VERY BAD?