NationStates Jolt Archive

Clearly seeing the benefits of peasants owning land and being able to take loans on these, the China government is allowing its own 700M peasants to do just that because, let's face it, it's worked so well in the West.

Actually I think it's a good idea of sorts, depending on which political philosophy hat I'm wearing, I worry that it's open to the sort of abuse that saw 90% of Russia's wealth owned by 20 oligarchs.

The proposals will not formally break with the principles of collectivisation. Land will continue to belong to the state, but the "leases" that were introduced by reformers in 1978 could now be lengthened to 70 years, giving farmers far greater freedom over what to do with the land.

Capitalism with Chinese characteristics as they say.

Given America is about to vote in its first Communist president, will our great-grandchildren be living in a world where capitalist China faces a Communist America?

In some seriousness, do people think the world will grow closer in terms of political philosophy or further apart?

Where's the article?

Where's the article?

You can't have it.

Where's the article?
You have to believe in it! Believe! Believe!

You have to believe in it! Believe! Believe!

Tinkerbell got her bug ass into another mess again huh?

*Claps hands repeatedly*

You have to believe in it! Believe! Believe!

Gah! The general public are never happy unless you feed them with a spoon,

Here's a decent article, the first was simply a news flash I'd received,

Here you go you whiny bastards... (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/12/asia/china.php)

*waits for the 'tl;dr, please summarise'*

Clearly seeing the benefits of peasants owning land and being able to take loans on these, the China government is allowing its own 700M peasants to do just that because, let's face it, it's worked so well in the West.

Actually I think it's a good idea of sorts, depending on which political philosophy hat I'm wearing, I worry that it's open to the sort of abuse that saw 90% of Russia's wealth owned by 20 oligarchs.



Capitalism with Chinese characteristics as they say.

Given America is about to vote in its first Communist president, will our great-grandchildren be living in a world where capitalist China faces a Communist America?

In some seriousness, do people think the world will grow closer in terms of political philosophy or further apart?

Fail, inability to keep your own political view away from an article having nothing to do with America. Also, China's totalitarian more than straight Marxist communist.

Fail, inability to keep your own political view away from an article having nothing to do with America. Also, China's totalitarian more than straight Marxist communist.

The oppression of those who even make a joke about Barack Obama is disturbing, evidence of the clampdown we expect to receive under the coming dictatorship?

Quit being so sensitive.

Having said that, I do suspect America will be far more to the left in 50 years time, it's a young nation after all, and I also think that once the natural instinct for bartering returns to China, they will be highly capitalist.

The oppression of those who even make a joke about Barack Obama is disturbing, evidence of the clampdown we expect to receive under the coming dictatorship?

Quit being so sensitive.

Having said that, I do suspect America will be far more to the left in 50 years time, it's a young nation after all.

I get sensitive when I get drunk.

Serioulsy though, I believe America will go hard left for about 15-20 years, then go back to the right when the left inevitably goes too far towards being like every other leftist country on earth.
[no backspace while drunk rule in effect]

Since you already spoon-fed us the article, could you go the extra mile and explain exactly how this would help Chinese peasants and the Chinese agriculture??

Since you already spoon-fed us the article, could you go the extra mile and explain exactly how this would help Chinese peasants and the Chinese agriculture??

In my personal opinion, I think the main effect is to lessen the power of local government, which is extraordinarily corrupt and abusive of the uneducated. I suspect that's a major motivation behind this but then the main reason is that China's domestic demand is relatively low and isolated to major cities.

Where China is facing a depression in the West, it needs to stimulate domestic growth or there'll be a huge collapse and then resulting chaos. If there's one word the Chinese are afraid of, it's 'chaos'. That fear lends justification to the current CCP, as long as they stave off chaos, they're tolerated.

Previous zany attempts at stimulating domestic demand has been the Golden Weeks - enforced 1-week holidays for Chinese New Year, May 1st and October 1st, idea being that a nation on holiday is a nation that's spending.

Anyway, the point is that peasants should be able to take loans based on the land they're working, which they previously couldn't because they had no real control over that land, everything had to be ordained from the local government.

This gives them some choice to grow, say, soy beans rather than wheat or whatever, both freeing them from local government somewhat and adding better fluidity. An extra 700m consumers would be quite the boon to any economy.

If anything, it will be interesting to see how willingly local government gives up control.

I get sensitive when I get drunk.

Serioulsy though, I believe America will go hard left for about 15-20 years, then go back to the right when the left inevitably goes too far towards being like every other leftist country on earth.
[no backspace while drunk rule in effect]

For the record, I've consistently supported Barack Obama...

...except when I supported Hillary Clinton.

http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12333103
The long march backwards

A surprising new book argues that China is becoming less, not more, of a capitalist economy

They used to allow more economic freedom to poor people, then for a while they embraced corporatism. As much as I'd hope this new announcement to be a more systemic change, I'd doubt it though.

http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12333103


They used to allow more economic freedom to poor people, then for a while they embraced corporatism. As much as I'd hope this new announcement to be a more systemic change, I'd doubt it though.

Sometimes I wonder if I can read another 'the surprising truth about China' book, though dammit if this one doesn't seem worth it.

I suspect that much of what I'd call cowboy capitalism of the 80's was government members running business on the side through proxies, though I couldn't prove it.

The problem is that China's central government does not have as much control as one would like to think, especially over local government. I imagine this would lead to both extraordinary diversity and rampant opportunism in the regions.

So I can imagine a lack of law led to initial explosions of people trying their luck, which has then been stifled both by officials looking to get their share of the cake, hence red-taping for bribes and etc.,

I wasn't aware of higher taxes from a central level on the countryside as a policy, I'd quite like to look deeper into that to see what that means exactly.

...which means I'll go read the damn book.

China needs to shore up personal property rights as a way of building the structures necessary for true development; now that they are industrialized, they need to create the kind of mindset that is necessary for pushing themselves to the next level. The stronger personal property rights are, the more likely people are to invest in that land for the future producing more intensive, lasting growth than that capable under the current system.

Overall, this is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, this marks the beginning of a new wave of reform as the Chinese are forced to do so out of economic necessity; this credit crisis requires them to move towards a freer market to keep their economy growing, a rather counterintuitive but nonetheless promising step towards their continued growth.

I think this is the only beginning, but it remains to be seen what comes next. If one thing's for sure, stronger property rights will allow them to make progress on environmental issues.

China needs to shore up personal property rights as a way of building the structures necessary for true development; now that they are industrialized, they need to create the kind of mindset that is necessary for pushing themselves to the next level. The stronger personal property rights are, the more likely people are to invest in that land for the future producing more intensive, lasting growth than that capable under the current system.

Overall, this is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, this marks the beginning of a new wave of reform as the Chinese are forced to do so out of economic necessity; this credit crisis requires them to move towards a freer market to keep their economy growing, a rather counterintuitive but nonetheless promising step towards their continued growth.

I think this is the only beginning, but it remains to be seen what comes next. If one thing's for sure, stronger property rights will allow them to make progress on environmental issues.

I'm reading a very interesting book by Niall Ferguson entitled Colossus, which overall proposes that the world might be better off if America stops the hypocrisy and openly becomes imperial, contentious perhaps but the point is that the book is filled with tables in terms of different infrastructures around the world.

Anyway, he says property rights and rule of law are simply necessary for a country to succeed, he called Taiwan and Hong Kong experiments in terms of whether culture or environmental resources have much impact on progress and concludes, in comparison to China, not so much.

So yes, property rights provide incentives at a basic level like no other.

I sometimes wonder whether China is more akin to a feudal system than communism, lordly government, city-based merchants and landless peasants.