China Sings The Blues
show comments
  • ErisGuy

    “created huge inequalities.”

    The inequality is huge? Wrong.

    I think the difference between the richest Chinese plutocrat and the most oppressed Tibetan peasant now is less than the difference between the White-Boned Demon (Madame Mao) and most oppressed Tibetan during the Cultural Revolution. So by comparing extremes the inequality is less.

    There more more Chinese enjoying prosperity now than during the Cultural Revolution, so the inequality is less by counting the numbers of poor, middle class, and rich.

  • Eurydice

    I’m not sure why encouraging internal consumption is a bad thing. After all, shouldn’t the Chinese people be able to buy the things that they produce? And the “massive” changes may only seem massive in relation to more developed economies.

    It seems to me that the issue is to not create an overreliance on consumption, and that’s fueled by easy credit, structural inducements to consume (like tax credits) and disincentives for savings.

  • My sentiments exactly. And I must say it is good to find myself AGREEING with Via Meadia again. Meanwhile, at the rate Beijing’s policy directions are humanizing – excuse me, DEVELOPING – I’m even beginning to wonder if it won’t be long before they qualify as partners in (what I hope is) an emerging Trans-Pacific Partnership. And I think I’m second to none in my wariness of the Anti-People’s Republic.

  • China: the star to which American plutocrats have so foolishly hitched themselves and “their” country. What were they thinking?

  • WigWag

    “As the blue social model collapses across Europe and the United States and Britain grope to replace it, China is trying to build a blue social model of its own.” (Via Meadia)

    How is it that the old saying goes? Isn’t it something like “when you’re a hammer everything looks like a nail?”

    Professor Mead’s inclination to see almost everything in the world through blue-tinted glasses is becoming stranger by the day. More and more he is coming to remind me of the Marxists who are so convinced that their theory is “scientific” in nature that they can use it to explain just about any social or economic phenomenon that they encounter.

    In my opinion it would be wiser for Professor Mead to temper his enthusiasm for thinking his hypothesis about the “blue model” is somehow akin to the “unified field theory” (theory of everything) that has eluded physicists for generations.

    Trying to ram the square peg of the “blue model” into the round hole that is China just makes turns his entire thesis into a caricature.

  • “China: the star to which American plutocrats have so foolishly hitched themselves and ‘their’ country. What were they thinking?”

    @ Mr Lea:
    Not sure. But they definitely weren’t thinking of “their” country. Speaking of which, many thanks for alerting us – at least
    twice, I believe – to that sordid, heroless story in It was a real eye-opener. Not to mention stomach-turner.

  • Eurydice

    @#6 WigWag – Yes, I wasn’t sure what the blue model had to do with this, either. Keeping a population’s standard of living artificially low so as to attract international business doesn’t seem like a sustainable way to run a country. What’s that trade surplus for, anyway? For what purpose are the people working? If it’s for the state and not for themselves, isn’t that kind of blue already? Or is it red? Or maybe it’s red when the state doesn’t give anything back. I’m so confused.

  • Kris

    Based on our host’s former writings about the blue social model, it seems entirely consistent to describe China’s putative shift as being blue-wards. And I’m not saying that just because I want to tout the headline: “Red China Turns Blue”.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.