August 13, 2012

Posted by orrinj at 2:08 PM

THERE IS NO CULTURE TO BE ASSIMILATED INTO:

Why I'm leaving the country I loved. (Mark Kitto, 8/08/12, Prospect)

Modern day mainland Chinese society is focused on one object: money and the acquisition thereof. The politically correct term in China is "economic benefit." The country and its people, on average, are far wealthier than they were 25 years ago. Traditional family culture, thanks to 60 years of self-serving socialism followed by another 30 of the "one child policy," has become a "me" culture. Except where there is economic benefit to be had, communities do not act together, and when they do it is only to ensure equal financial compensation for the pollution, or the government-sponsored illegal land grab, or the poisoned children. Social status, so important in Chinese culture and more so thanks to those 60 years of communism, is defined by the display of wealth. Cars, apartments, personal jewellery, clothing, pets: all must be new and shiny, and carry a famous foreign brand name. In the small rural village where we live I am not asked about my health or that of my family, I am asked how much money our small business is making, how much our car cost, our dog.

The trouble with money of course, and showing off how much you have, is that you upset the people who have very little. Hence the Party's campaign to promote a "harmonious society," its vast spending on urban and rural beautification projects, and reliance on the sale of "land rights" more than personal taxes.

Once you've purchased the necessary baubles, you'll want to invest the rest somewhere safe, preferably with a decent return--all the more important because one day you will have to pay your own medical bills and pension, besides overseas school and college fees. But there is nowhere to put it except into property or under the mattress. The stock markets are rigged, the banks operate in a way that is non-commercial, and the yuan is still strictly non-convertible. While the privileged, powerful and well-connected transfer their wealth overseas via legally questionable channels, the remainder can only buy yet more apartments or thicker mattresses. The result is the biggest property bubble in history, which when it pops will sound like a thousand firework accidents.

In brief, Chinese property prices have rocketed; owning a home has become unaffordable for the young urban workers; and vast residential developments continue to be built across the country whose units are primarily sold as investments, not homes. If you own a property you are more than likely to own at least three. Many of our friends do. If you don't own a property, you are stuck.

When the bubble pops, or in the remote chance that it deflates gradually, the wealth the Party gave the people will deflate too. The promise will have been broken. And there'll still be the medical bills, pensions and school fees. The people will want their money back, or a say in their future, which amounts to a political voice. If they are denied, they will cease to be harmonious.

Meanwhile, what of the ethnic minorities and the factory workers, the people on whom it is more convenient for the government to dispense overwhelming force rather than largesse? If an outburst of ethnic or labour discontent coincides with the collapse of the property market, and you throw in a scandal like the melamine tainted milk of 2008, or a fatal train crash that shows up massive, high level corruption, as in Wenzhou in 2011, and suddenly the harmonious society is likely to become a chorus of discontent.

How will the Party deal with that? How will it lead?

Unfortunately it has forgotten. The government is so scared of the people it prefers not to lead them.

In rural China, village level decisions that require higher authorisation are passed up the chain of command, sometimes all the way to Beijing, and returned with the note attached: "You decide." The Party only steps to the fore where its power or personal wealth is under direct threat. The country is ruled from behind closed doors, a building without an address or a telephone number. The people in that building do not allow the leaders they appoint to actually lead. Witness Grandpa Wen, the nickname for the current, soon to be outgoing, prime minister. He is either a puppet and a clever bluff, or a man who genuinely wants to do the right thing. His proposals for reform (aired in a 2010 interview on CNN, censored within China) are good, but he will never be able to enact them, and he knows it.

To rise to the top you must be grey, with no strong views or ideas. Leadership contenders might think, and here I hypothesise, that once they are in position they can show their "true colours." Too late they realise that will never be possible. As a publisher I used to deal with officials who listened to the people in one of the wings of that building. They always spoke as if there was a monster in the next room, one that cannot be named. It was "them" or "our leaders." Once or twice they called it the "China Publishing Group." No such thing exists. I searched hard for it. It is a chimera.

In that building are the people who, according to pundits, will be in charge of what they call the Chinese Century. "China is the next superpower," we're told. "Accept it. Deal with it." How do you deal with a faceless leader, who when called upon to adjudicate in an international dispute sends the message: "You decide"?

It is often argued that China led the world once before, so we have nothing to fear. As the Chinese like to say, they only want to "regain their rightful position." While there is no dispute that China was once the major world superpower, there are two fundamental problems with the idea that it should therefore regain that "rightful position."

A key reason China achieved primacy was its size. As it is today, China was, and always will be, big. (China loves "big." "Big" is good. If a Chinese person ever asks you what you think of China, just say "It's big," and they will be delighted.) If you are the biggest, and physical size matters as it did in the days before microchips, you tend to dominate. Once in charge the Chinese sat back and accepted tribute from their suzerain and vassal states, such as Tibet. If trouble was brewing beyond its borders that might threaten the security or interests of China itself, the troublemakers were set against each other or paid off.

The second reason the rightful position idea is misguided is that the world in which China was the superpower did not include the Americas, an enlightened Europe or a modern Africa. The world does not want to live in a Chinese century, just as much of it doesn't like living in an American one. China, politically, culturally and as a society, is inward looking. It does not welcome intruders--unless they happen to be militarily superior and invade from the north, as did two imperial dynasties, the Yuan (1271-1368) and the Qing (1644-1911), who became more Chinese than the Chinese themselves. Moreover, the fates of the Mongols, who became the Yuan, and Manchu, who became the Qing, provide the ultimate deterrent: "Invade us and be consumed from the inside," rather like the movie Alien. All non-Chinese are, to the Chinese, aliens, in a mildly derogatory sense. The polite word is "Outsider." The Chinese are on "The Inside." Like anyone who does not like what is going on outside--the weather, a loud argument, a natural disaster--the Chinese can shut the door on it. Maybe they'll stick up a note: "Knock when you've decided how to deal with it."

Leadership requires empathy, an ability to put yourself in your subordinate's shoes. It also requires decisiveness and a willingness to accept responsibility. Believing themselves to be unique, the Chinese find it almost impossible to empathise. Controlled by people with conflicting interests, China's government struggles to be decisive in domestic issues, let alone foreign ones. Witness the postponement of the leadership handover thanks to the Bo Xilai scandal. And the system is designed to make avoidance of responsibility a prerequisite before any major decision is taken. (I know that sounds crazy. It is meant to. It is true.)

A leader must also offer something more than supremacy. The current "world leader" offers the world the chance to be American and democratic, usually if they want to be, sometimes by force. The British empire offered freedom from slavery and a legal system, amongst other things. The Romans took grain from Egypt and redistributed it across Europe.

A China that leads the world will not offer the chance to be Chinese, because it is impossible to become Chinese. Nor is the Chinese Communist Party entirely averse to condoning slavery. It has encouraged its own people to work like slaves to produce goods for western companies, to earn the foreign currency that has fed its economic boom. (How ironic that the Party manifesto promised to kick the slave-driving foreigners out of China.) And the Party wouldn't know a legal system if you swung the scales of justice under its metaphorical nose. (I was once a plaintiff in the Beijing High Court. I was told, off the record, that I had won my case. While my lawyer was on his way to collect the decision the judge received a telephone call. The decision was reversed.) As for resources extracted from Africa, they go to China.

There is one final reason why the world does not want to be led by China in the 21st century. The Communist Party of China has, from its very inception, encouraged strong anti-foreign sentiment. Fevered nationalism is one of its cornerstones. The Party's propaganda arm created the term "one hundred years of humiliation" to define the period from the Opium Wars to the Liberation, when foreign powers did indeed abuse and coerce a weak imperial Qing government. The second world war is called the War of Resistance Against Japan. To speak ill of China in public, to award a Nobel prize to a Chinese intellectual, or for a public figure to have tea with the Dalai Lama, is to "interfere in China's internal affairs" and "hurt the feelings of the Chinese people." The Chinese are told on a regular basis to feel aggrieved at what foreigners have done to them, and the Party vows to exact vengeance on their behalf.

The alternative scenario to a world dominated by an aggrieved China is hardly less bleak and illustrates how China already dominates the world and its economy. That is the increasing likelihood that there will be upheaval in China within the next few years, sparked by that property crash. When it happens it will be sudden, like all such events. Sun Yat Sen's 1911 revolution began when someone set off a bomb by accident. Some commentators say it will lead to revolution, or a collapse of the state. There are good grounds. Everything the Party does to fix things in the short term only makes matters worse in the long term by setting off property prices again. Take the recent cut in interest rates, which was done to boost domestic consumption, which won't boost itself until the Party sorts out the healthcare system, which it hasn't the money for because it has been invested in American debt, which it can't sell without hurting the dollar, which would raise the value of the yuan and harm exports, which will shut factories and put people out of work and threaten social stability.

I hope the upheaval, when it comes, is peaceful, that the Party does not try to distract people by launching an attack on Taiwan or the Philippines. Whatever form it takes, it will bring to an end China's record-breaking run of economic growth that has supposedly driven the world's economy and today is seen as our only hope of salvation from recession.


Fear of violent revolution or domestic upheaval, with a significant proportion of that violence sure to be directed at foreigners, is not the main reason I am leaving China, though I shan't deny it is one of them.

Apart from what I hope is a justifiable human desire to be part of a community and no longer be treated as an outsider, to run my own business in a regulated environment and not live in fear of it being taken away from me, and not to concern myself unduly that the air my family breathes and the food we eat is doing us physical harm, there is one overriding reason I must leave China. I want to give my children a decent education.



Posted by orrinj at 2:02 PM

WHICH IS WHY "HEALTH CARE" COSTS SHOULD COME OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET:

You could be sick ...    ... but probably not  (Chicago Tribune, August 13, 2012)

"Worried well" is the term for people who spend too much time visiting the doctor and obsessing about their health even though there's nothing physically wrong with them.

Who can blame them? Doctors issue ever-evolving and often confusing advice on when, and if, screenings for various illnesses -- most recently prostate cancer -- are necessary. Even the annual physical exam is under fire because it often leads to tests that are useless or even harmful because they can prompt unnecessary follow-up procedures.

Yet public health officials extol more screenings and tests as a way to avoid illness.

Result: Untold billions of dollars are wasted every year by Americans for unnecessary scans, biopsies and tests. Not to mention all that anxiety waiting for the doctor's call with your test results.

Why are so many Americans well but worried? Because they're "encouraged to think like hypochondriacs" says Catherine Belling, a Northwestern University medical school professor who wrote a just-released book, "A Condition of Doubt: The Meanings of Hypochondria."

Belling blames "a public health culture of early detection and disease awareness that encourages us to think that we may well be sick even if we feel completely fine and have no symptoms."

Posted by orrinj at 1:40 PM

TODAY'S BRIDGE ABUTMENT MOMENT:

Paul Ryan's V.P. Nomination Kills Off Moderate Republicanism For Good (Geoffrey Kabaservice, August 12, 2012, The New Republic)

Ryan's scheme to turn Medicare into a capped voucher program would shift much of the burden of medical spending onto individuals but would do nothing to address the fact that the United States pays more for healthcare than any other developed country but gets worse outcomes.


Adam Smith wept.

Posted by orrinj at 1:32 PM

NOT PUNISHING FRAUD INVITES MORE:

Those Pesky Derivatives Strike Again (Michael Bobelian, 8/12/12, Forbes)

Derivatives stood at the center of AIG's downfall.  JPMorgan Chase is in the process of losing billions of dollars stemming from trades involving these financial products.  And they have been the target of numerous government investigations and multimillion dollar settlements involving Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Wachovia (which later merged with Wells Fargo) in recent years.

Now, it's Morgan Stanley's turn.  Only this time, it isn't being accused of selling dubious and enigmatic investments to naive investors.  Instead, federal regulators have claimed that the bank served as a counterparty with KeySpan (a utility) and the electricity provider's leading competitor as part of an effort to artificially prop up electricity prices in the New York metropolitan area.

Posted by orrinj at 5:28 AM

THE LEFT AND RIGHT ARE TOO PAROCHIAL TO NOTICE...:

Paul Ryan and the triumph of theory (E.J. Dionne Jr., August 12, 2012, Washington Post)

If Paul Ryan were a liberal, conservatives would describe him as a creature of Washington who has spent virtually all of his professional life as a congressional aide, a staffer at an ideological think tank and, finally, as a member of Congress. In the right's shorthand: He never met a payroll.

If they were in a sunny mood, these conservatives would readily concede that Ryan is a nice guy who's fun to talk to. But they'd also insist that he is an impractical ideologue. He holds an almost entirely theoretical view of the world defined by big ideas that never touch the ground and devotes little energy to considering how his proposed budgets might affect the lives of people he's never met.

In making Ryan his running mate, Mitt Romney guaranteed that this election will be about big principles, but he also underscored a little-noted transformation in American politics: Liberals and conservatives have switched sides on the matter of which camp constitutes the party of theory and which is the party of practice. Americans usually reject the party of theory, which is what conservatism has now become.


...but Mr. Ryan's positions are neither merely theoretical nor even mildly radical any longer, they're the mainstream practice of the Anglosphere and other Third Way countries since at least the Chicago Boys innovations of the Pinochet regime.  This initial example was quickly followed by the governments of Margaret Thatcher, Bob Hawke, and Labour in New Zealand. Eventually Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Stephen Harper, John Howard, John Key, Frederik Reinfeldt and others followed suit.  As these names suggest, not only do voters not reject the "party of theory," but throughout the English Speaking world in particular, identification with Third Way "theory" is the surest predictor of electoral success.  



Posted by orrinj at 5:26 AM

AT WHICH POINT YOU JUST NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT TOOK THE PRESSURE OFF PRICES...:

Housing bubble? What housing bubble? : Meet Paul Willen, a Boston Fed economist preaching a bad-news gospel: We won't see the crash coming next time, either. (Leon Neyfakh, AUGUST 03, 2012, Boston Globe)

[Paul Willen, a research economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston], moves through the world in a state of dismay and occasional fury at the fact that absolutely no one--not the media, not the public, and not his fellow economists--seems to understand the truth about what happened. Since 2008, Willen, a mortgage specialist, has pored over troves of data and emerged with a powerful, counterintuitive conclusion: that the real reason everything ended so badly wasn't adjustable rate loans, or government housing policy, or esoteric financial instruments. Rather, it was a single underlying assumption that almost everyone in the market, from bankers to home buyers, shared: that American house prices would continue to go up indefinitely.


Willen has spent the past four years trying to persuade people of what he sees in the data: that everyone in the drama acted perfectly rationally. Under the assumption that the real estate market would continue its steady rise, it made sense for families to buy homes they couldn't afford, and it made sense for bankers to buy up subprime mortgages. This belief --Willen thinks of it as a mass delusion--fueled an immense bubble that could not be reliably identified for what it was. [...]

Since 2008, Willen has been pressing his theory about the crisis in a series of academic papers and lectures. But while his job at the Fed gives him access to policy makers in the central bank, he has found himself firmly in the role of outsider in his own field. Critics say he underplays the extent to which the crisis was made more grave because of reckless decisions by lenders and bankers, and some suggest it's a cop-out--a way to spin the problem so that no one, especially the Fed, has to take any blame for what went wrong.

But if this theory excuses economic policy makers in the short term, in the bigger picture it attacks the very foundations of what they claim to do. Ultimately, Willen's argument can be seen as an indictment not of the players in the crisis, but of the field of economics, which he believes is fundamentally incapable of delivering the kind of insights and wisdom that some of its practitioners, as well as members of the public, believe it can.

"People think the bubble was driven by reckless underwriting," Willen said in an interview at the Boston Fed recently. "But the truth is the bubble was this thing that emerged kind of organically, and we don't really understand where it came from."

...which was killing immigration reform.  Removing tens of millions of prospective buyers was disastrous in itself, but it also exposed all the fraudulent activity that financial institutions had engaged in, hiding the real risk inherent in subprime mortgages.

Posted by orrinj at 5:23 AM

THE THIRD GUY ON THE TICKET:

Liberal Wyden's partnership with Ryan becomes a GOP talking point (Jason Horowitz, August 12, 20122, Washington Post)

Senator Ron Wyden, a lifelong liberal Democrat from Oregon, has emerged as a key Republican talking point in the 2012 presidential election.

In his proud pursuit of creative, if politically implausible, policy initiatives, Wyden has in the past teamed up with the likes of Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the newly anointed Republican vice presidential candidate. Their collaboration on a Medicare reform proposal helped cement Wyden's reputation as a "King of Policy Wonks," as he is sometimes dismissively referred to within his caucus. And it also has given Republicans some cover on the campaign trail.