Richard @ The Peking Duck, one of my long-time RSS subscriptions, recently linked to a New York Times’ piece titled “The End of the Financial World as We Know It” written by Michael Lewis, blessing it as “the single best piece” he’s found to explain the current global financial crisis, urging his readers to read it themselves. I also recommend you take the time to click over to read it now, and then come back to read how all of this should help shape your long-term understanding of China, the Chinese, and ourselves.
Back? Okay, so by now you’re probably shaking your head in disbelief as Richard predicted, or maybe you’re not, especially if you’ve been following the current financial mess since the beginning and already knew that peoples’ short-term interests have long dominated their decision-making. Whatever your head is doing, and so long as you’ve been living in, following, or otherwise observing China, you should’ve noticed just how frustratingly familiar the tone of that article was with every criticisms ever written or uttered of China, the Chinese government, or of the Chinese themselves.
How does this happen? How can the person in charge of assessing Wall Street firms not have the tools to understand them? Is the S.E.C. that inept? Perhaps, but the problem inside the commission is far worse — because inept people can be replaced. The problem is systemic.
Replace “Wall Street” and “the S.E.C.” with China-specific terms like “the dairy industry” and “the AQSIQ” and how often have we made similar comments, with much weeping and gnashing of teeth? How often have we been utterly appalled–when not self-righteousnly baffled–by the dereliction of duty amongst the very government officials and agencies responsible for ensuring that the the babies of China’s “lao bai xing” drink milk instead of melamine or that people around the rest of the world play with toys instead of lead, or brush with toothpaste instead of poison?
The Peking Duck finishes with:
The NYT column gives you the entire picture, and makes you wonder why we are asking those who filthied the stables [the investment banks, the S.E.C., the US Treasury, etc.] to now clean them up.
Don’t we often ask why the Chinese persist in allowing–even trusting–their single-party government to “clean” things up, solve these problems, and restore “harmonious” society? Why don’t they open their eyes and instead demand a government and a socio-political system “like ours” that is more responsible to the very people it is meant to protect?
“The problem is systemic.”
Or is the problem ourselves? Our very flawed human nature? A nature that is common to both Chinese and Westerner? Common in both authoritarian socialism and liberal democracy?
However different we are on the surface, are we really that different underneath? Whether Chinese or Western, how obvious is it now that we are all equally permissive, gullible, even hopeful of the same near-sighted self-interest, corruption, and ineptitude that plagues us, giving rise to milk scandals and sub-prime mortgage collapses?
China versus The West: different toilets and different toilet paper, but both of our shits still stink.
Welcome to 2009.
-
Did Jackie Chan really say “Chinese people need to be controlled”? Let’s take a look at the Chinese and see if his comments were taken out of context and sensationalized by the Western media.
-
A 12 point summary of the entire Green Dam Youth Escort web-filtering and censorship software controversy and the CCTV attacking Google for porn links scandal.
-
Several days ago, ESWN posted a translation of a Tianya post titled “What is the reason China’s younger generation is losing confidence in the Western...
Jackie Chan Said “Chinese Need To Be Controlled”, Or Did He? 
Green Dam & CCTV’s Attacks On Google – 12 Point Review 
Chinese Youth on Western Media: A Diversity of Opinion 
Great post, Kai. Where I shook my head in disbelief was the article’s description of the report on Madoff that went universally ignored, and Markoplous’ efforts to expose Madoff since 1999. Americans are like the Chinese who are like everybody else in the world when it comes to sacrificing morality short-term gain. Thus we have all the wealth in China built at the expense of the environment and many other tragedies. I suppose I shouldn’t be so naive as to be surprised at this phenomenon.
Sorry, “FOR short-term gain.”
as my name indicates it, there can always be some common flaws within human nature, but you can see the difference in efficiency of how the system , namely “authoritarian socialism” and “liberal democracy” can deal with such cases. They are fundamentally different!
I doubt that China’s milk formula scandal is similar to US’ subprime crisis. As the result of the Sanlu’s formula crisis, the people who are responsible are in jail, company went bankrupt, and regulations was enacted. As the result of US’ subprime crisis, most of the people who are responsible are probably still earning millions, still running Wall Street, and no laws are enacted to stop this from happening again.
Unfortunately, I doubt a few rolling heads, a bankrupt company, and enacted regulations that likely will still be violated due to lax enforcement will stop product scandals from happening again in China. There are still the same systemic problems, not least of which is the inherent conflicts of interest built into the Chinese system, not entirely unlike Wall St and the SEC.
That’s, to me, the sign of a systemic problem — when milk kills babies, enact regulation specifically against milk killing babies — it’s reactive, focused around public relations, and entirely short-term. The government hasn’t done the hard work regulating agricultural systems (admittedly very difficult, costly, and time-consuming) that would prevent, say, another chemical additive in another mass-produced food product. Similarly, the US has a subprime mortgage crisis, and to fix it they throw money at the problem. Punishing executives would be emotionally satisfying, but neither solution fixes the US’s basic economic problems, creates a regulatory structure or prevents future trouble. In both countries the problem is both that the laws are insufficient and that people don’t enforce the law.
So I agree with the article — China and the US are much more similar than they might seem — both governments are run by bureaucrats whose self-interest sometimes outweighs their desire for a healthy and safe future for everyone.
At least Peking Duck is staying away from China matters. That is a good start.
Great post. It’s amusing that this post is so much in agreement with mine ( Street, Dec. 9), yet I got only disapproving comments. :-)
Woops, I didn’t do the link properly. Let me try again:
Melamine on Wall Street
Xujun, I like your point:
What the poor Chinese farmer did was to make one gallon of milk look like two gallons and still pass the nutrition test. Buying melamine was cheaper than producing real milk. He had discovered his way to wealth through leverage. Had he lived in the US, he needn’t bother with melamine, because he could get a lot bigger leverage LEGALLY.
The point is that people are willing to take risks to pursue profits even if they don’t fully understand how the risks involve other people. As long as they get paid today, then they don’t worry about tommorow. This kind of short-term thinking seems very prevalent in China, and now we see how prevalent it is on Wall St.
Why doesn’t this read, “NYT Reminds Us Americans Not Much Better Than Chinese”? The article is about comparing America and China right? Everything NOT Chinese is Western? Boring.
Uh, because it wasn’t just the Americans who are party to the financial system that “Wall St.” symbolizes.
Mr. Kai,
Well said. I agree.
Thanks.
No Billy Bubbs is right, the headline is cheap. Lewis only talks about American failings, and in fact with reason. The ponzi schemes, obscuring of real risk in dodgy credit derivatives, mass-scale mortgage mis-selling, these were all happening in American financial institutions. Other Western countries have as a result been hit by standard failings – excessive leverage to assets, mispriced currencies, etc – but so have non-western ones, including China.
More significantly, you headline is offensive because it assumes that people who criticise the Chinese political system think that chinese people are not as good as Westerners (that’s the underlying reason you switch Westerners for Americans of course – if you put Americans in there the absurdity of the headline would be more apparent). But critics like us journalists don’t think Chinese people are inferior at all – in fact, most either think all people are pretty much the same or even that Chinese perseverance, intelligence etc are wholly admirable. As you yourself say, it all about systems, not people. (And, as it happens, the Chinese system is western, from a Chinese viewpoint, namely Russian).
The comparison between Sanlu and the western financial system is fun but doesn’t really hold up either. but’s that’s probably enough for now (except to point out that the republican party isn’t in power anymore, but the communist party is and it is the Sanlu execs who are in court, not the people who ordered the cover-up).
American financial institutions who employ and are often run by non-Americans. Having read the NYT article that starts off explaining how much of the world emulated, sought jobs on, even blindly followed what was going on in “America” Wall St, you should know that it is silly to try to limit the blame onto only “Americans.” The NYT article is about our (read: worldwide) modern financial system, which is not limited to a single “country” or “nationality.” I grant “Westerners” has always been a troublesome term but are you really having a difficult time “getting” how it is being used here?
If you think the headline is offensive, then you’re getting your panties in a twist over nothing. Don’t play stupid and argue that I’m seriously suggesting that ALL Westerners think this or that. Of course not “all,” but enough do so that such a title is suitable. If my title got you to read, then it worked. A title is rarely ever going to be a fully qualified statement. There is no need for semantic deconstruction or conspiracy theories. It isn’t nearly that devious. It is an oversimplification, as titles often are, of what I’m about to say in the piece itself.
“As you yourself say, it all about systems, not people.”
Uh, no. Actually, one of my main points was that the “problem is systemic” precisely because of the people within the system. If you’re hung up on the “Sanlu and western financial system” (”western?”), you’re missing the point again, that we, regardless of where we’re from, are plagued by our human shortcomings and that is manifested in the systems we both exploit and subjugate ourselves to.
This was more about human nature than about nationality.
all the institutions Lewis mentions are American. They happen to be largely run by Americans but that’s not the point and I am precisely not blaming “Americans” – we were talking (so were you on this issue) about systems, and it is, if the comparison with the dairy crisis is to work, the American system that failed (to stop things going wrong).
I am quite aware of how you were using the term “western” which is why I am challenging it.
I may be getting my pants in a twist but the implication of the headline is that critics of the Chinese political system are racist. That’s not just an “oversimplification” of your post because it’s not a point your post remotely tries to argue. it’s a sneer.
I fully understand that YOU are saying that it’s about people, not systems – the point I was making is that critics think it’s about systems, not people, as you yourself do indeed say (so by implying that critics are talking about people is to misrepresent your own point as well as them). if you can’t grasp that it’s your own argument you are failing to grasp.
of course humans are all wallowing in their own shit. that’s the tritest of all timeless apercus. But do you really think that systems don’t make a difference? I know a few countries, and peoples, that would beg to differ.
Richard, yes, the “nationality” of the institutions is not the point.
Yes, for the comparison to work, the systems had to fail the general population critically in some way. I believe the comparison works.
You challenging the term “western” is a red herring. If you’re not a racist Westerner, then you need not get your panties in a twist.
My post definitely was not trying to argue anything about racism. It was that this NYT article reminds racist (or let’s just say self-righteous, to be more accurate) Westerners who look down on the Chinese in some way or another, about politics or business or ethics or whatever, that the fundamental reasons for royally “fucking up” are founded in human nature and the systems created, operated, fumbled, even exploited by humans and their human nature. What made you think I was ever arguing about racism? It was to let this remind us NOT to be racist or, again, so self-righteous.
Who are these “critics” you are referring to? Are you talking about critics of China? Or what?
Since when did I say systems don’t make any difference?
Starting with your “critics” statements, I think there’s a good chance we’re thinking in different contexts, so before we further misunderstand each other, I’ll ask you to kindly be very clear in your response as to what you’re referring to.
If you meant “critics” as in “critics of China,” it isn’t so simple as saying they think its about the system and not the people. Some do, and some (the more “racist” ones), believe its about people. Hence why I expanded it to “China, the Chinese government, or of the Chinese themselves” in my post. You’re one who says its about the system, not the people. That’s great, I largely agree. I never said systems don’t matter or don’t make a difference. That was not my point. My point was that in either system and in either system “failure,” we can see the same human flaws behind them: greed, self-interest, short-sightedness, conflicts of interest, etc. etc. etc.
THAT’S what I mean about my post being about human nature. I fully grasp my own argument (which I’m quite confident ought to be logical to anyone but a racist), but insofar as you’re misunderstanding it or maligning it, I’ll grant I haven’t communicated it effectively to you. Sorry about that.
Here’s the problem, and really, I don’t care that much but it is interesting how these lines of argument develop. You say: “What made you think I was ever arguing about racism? It was to let this remind us NOT to be racist…” Well, I wonder, why shouldn’t I think you were arguing about racism when you say you are yourself in the same breath?
Your central argument is easily grasped, have no fear: human nature is fallible, and that underlies the weaknesses of human political systems and life in general. Yes well of course who could deny that. The problem is with the nature of your characterisation of the arguments you claim this in some way refutes. The reason I harp on this is not because my panties are in a twist but because by constantly switching between referents (Americans or all Westerners? All critics of China or just racist ones?) you are trying to sweep more attitudes into the “disproved” basket than your argument actually merits.
And that pisses me off (it’s a very common trick). I don’t see why things I say or agree with should be discredited by people who get away with tarring them unfairly with the brush of others motivated by racism, partiality, etc.
Put it simply: I can accept that human nature is flawed, and agree that the American financial system has really screwed up. Those who say (if there truly are any) that Americans or anyone else are better than Chinese, or that the Chinese political causes bad things to happen and the American one doesn’t, is clearly revealed to be talking crap. But as far as I can see, that doesn’t in any way stop me from saying the Chinese system was responsible for allowing the milk poisoning to go on until after the Olympics, and that it is characteristic of the way it reacts to crisis.
The Westerner thing is important because quite a number of Europeans, for example, think that just because America has screwed up doesn’t mean their own (rather different) political systems have failed: indeed, an increasing number point to the similarities between America and China (not surprising: who does China regard as a role model if not America?). What Sanlu and Madoff really have in common is hubris.
(oh, for our readers I should point out I’m not the Richard mentioned in the post or who made the first comments).
“Yes well of course who could deny that.”
Um, everyone who casually thinks Westerners are somehow intrinsically better, dropping concepts of historical individualism, democracy, etc.
“constantly switching between referents (Americans or all Westerners? All critics of China or just racist ones?)”
Actually, my original post only mentions Westerners. I thought you said you already “got” which “kind” of Westerner I’m referring to.
“I don’t see why things I say or agree with should be discredited by people who get away with tarring them unfairly with the brush of others motivated by racism, partiality, etc.”
You need to be more secure in your beliefs and your ability to defend them in the face of those who would dismiss you with accusations of “racism, partiality, etc.” My post is not saying every criticism of China, the Chinese government, or of the Chinese themselves is automatically racist, etc.
“Those who say (if there truly are any) that Americans or anyone else are better than Chinese, or that the Chinese political causes bad things to happen and the American one doesn’t, is clearly revealed to be talking crap.”
Yes, bingo.
“The Westerner thing is important because quite a number of Europeans,”
Right, I expected some Europeans to get their panties in a twist wanting to differentiate themselves from the “Americans” in the NYT article as a knee-jerk reaction. Doing so just shows me they’ve missed the overriding point that this is less about blame as it is about acknowledging that we, including Europeans who long eyed Wall St. and sought to work there or derive their money from it (as alluded to in the NYT article), are still plagued by the human weaknesses as the Americans and the Chinese. Therefore, “Westerners.” Why? Because my post here, with relevance to China, is about how this piece humbles common “Western” attitudes towards China.
Richard, please try to avoid thinking this post was really an argument as opposed to a reminder: We’re all capable of doing bad things, regardless of whether we’re Western or Chinese. It was, as the title implies, aimed at those who would think otherwise, that they, by virtue of their race, ethnicity, socio-economic background, etc. are fundamentally different. It is NOT that there are NO differences, but rather that differences should not be carelessly oversimplified along generalizations as race, etc. and that while we are not all evil, we are all capable of it. The title is meant to resonate with those who are guilty of or understand that line of thinking that so easily occurs when people are frustrated with the people, practices, behavior, or (yes) systems of another race, ethnicity, nationality, etc.
Looking deep into the Sanlu scandal you’ll see the root cause is NOT the lax enforcement of safety regulation, as Kai suggested. Rather, it’s the ruthless enforcement of the unrealistic price ceiling of the milk products. Sanlu and the milk industry are just the scapegoats of a failed economic policy. Let’s face it. China is capable of producing both high and low quality goods and services, with or without the government regulations. It all depends on how much you are willing to pay, simply Economics 101, which is also the root cause of this recession originated from the US housing market.
If you have to look over the greedy nature of the capitalism and dub this as a system failure, then both failures still look very similar to me. It does not take a genius to figure out untainted, good quality milk cannot sustain at the ridiculously low price, same as an unemployed single mom with 3 kids to support can’t normally afford a $500K house. But the Chinese government loves to show its care for the people, same as the US government and the reps, even with the benefits of high property tax income and low inflation rate, so they instituted the stupid policies anyway.
If there is a difference between the two system failures, it’s this: in the US, you can always blame Bush and Greenspan for all the mess and somehow convince yourself Obama has no part of it, while in China the government enjoys no such luxury.
Ah, CnInDC. ;)
You’re missing the point. Even if that were the case, a conscientious supplier would not dilute product with melamine in order to satisfy these price ceilings. Self-interest prevailed over the common good in this matter. While the thrust of my piece was not about “lax enforcement” (but rather about the root causes behind such phenomenon as lax enforcement), it still stands that lax enforcement was a critical contributing factor to the milk scandal: By virtue of being exempt from testing, Sanlu products were distributed to the market and harmed hundreds of thousands of Chinese babies. If there were better enforcement or less dangerous policies regarding enforcement of quality, the disaster still could have been averted. This is Social Responsibility 101.
Unsubstantiated presumption. In both China and the United States, the central government has been both blamed for the problems and petitioned for redress. If anything, Bush is getting far more flak for the economy than Hu is getting for the milk scandal, despite both being the “captain” that steers the ship, the one who was “on watch.”
I’m not sure if you mean what I think you intelligently mean, but insofar as Obama gets excused for being part of the opposition party despite the fact that he was part of the political system that still allowed such a financial mess to spawn, you’re partly right that the government in China enjoys no such luxury. The reason is because they choose not to have an opposition party. They choose not to have that check, which conveniently provides excuses for disassociation of responsibility when the shit hits the fan on the opposing party’s watch.
I’m sorry, my last two paragraphs may be confusing. Each responds to a different interpretation of the quoted text. I should therefore say I’m not sure what the quoted text was meant to say, so I’ll ask CnInDC to clarify.
What I meant was, just by having an election every 4 years and two parties playing the opposite sides does not exonerate the “system” from being closely examined and suspected as being fundamentally flawed.
When shit hits the fan in China everyone points at the “system” (a.k.a. the political institutions, the lack of freedom of speech, elections and the legislative arms blah blah), not Hu or Wen or Jiang or Zhu, suggesting if the political institutions in China were as good as their western counterparts things could be a lot better, except for they are not. The theories all sound great, until they reach the reality.
When shit hits the fan in the west, people automatically assume it’s not the foundation of the house but some bed bugs. They quickly search for easy targets as scapegoats, being it Bush or Greenspan or GOP or the lack of regulation from the congress or whatever. When they blame the congress, they refer to the physical congress made up of the congressmen and congresswomen, but not the congress as an institution. They assume by putting a more eloquent, younger guy in the white house or the Capitol things will automatically resolve. I don’t think so. In my mental experiment, if Obama (or even the God) were elected 4 years ago he’d have exactly the same fate as Bush right now, being humiliated and named the worst president or whatever.
The hard question to ask is, could it be possible that the political institutions in the west is also fundamentally flawed, that the elections do not put the right person in place, the legislative arm is collectively acting stupid, the freedom of speech does not sufficiently afford a responsible media that effectively checks and balances the acts of the government, and the government is fundamentally not doing the jobs it’s supposed to do? When asking what went wrong, the western intellectuals should have the courage to apply the same standard to examine their own political institutions as they did to China. Why doesn’t the US need a revolution, as they always wish China would have?
As for Social Responsibility 101, what kind of social responsibility it is to let the single mom put zero percent down and loan $500K to buy the house she can’t possibly afford? In this aspect, the lack of social responsibility does not differ across the ocean. (BTW the young people here choose to see those “green” things as socially responsible, I see those as sale pitch, which is used when they lose the competition elsewhere.)
As for the test exemption, there’s one factor of practicality: you can’t possibly regulate your way into every aspects of the economic life. You’ve got to put your trust somewhere sooner or later. Sanlu was indeed the largest milk producers and their quality had been somewhat good for years until the most recent tragedy (also I suspect being the largest they were also the most obvious one to be heavily regulated on the price ceiling). If they added large amount of melamine long time ago this would have blown out long ago (remind you the price ceiling was put in place only about one year ago, and Sanlu lost huge by producing more). The current milk product safety regulations cannot sustain unless an additional percentage cost being added to the price tag, and who’s going to foot the bill? The same is true in the US. If the US government doesn’t even trust the largest financial institutions in the world on home loans, it may as well run the home loan business all by itself. In this aspect, I don’t think I miss the point. Regulation was not the point in the first place.
Yes, I agree that the mere existence of elections and parties in opposition does not “exonerate” a system from flaws, examination, or suspicion.
The rest of your post is spent asserting or insinuating that liberal democracy is fundamentally flawed without actually making a single argument to explain why or what would be better beyond the fact that things aren’t perfect. However, that’s a straw man tactic because liberal democracy or the “system” of “the West” never promised or promises perfection or the absence of flaws, mistakes, or problems.
The “system” (of liberal democracy) is upheld in high esteem not for its results but for its processes, because there are good arguments for why its processes are better at preventing, managing, or solving problems that often persist in other systems such as corruption, conflicts of interest, or abuse of power.
You simply asking about elections not putting the right person in place proves my suspicions of your argument. You’ve misunderstood (or worse, are mischaracterizing to malign) the premise of liberal democracy or the support for liberal democracy by its proponents. It is not about perfect results as it is about distribution of power, choice, and institutions of recourse.
Western intellectuals have plenty of courage for introspection and self-criticism, as well as the media in many cases. How often could you find an equivalent of this NYT article in China? Very very very rarely. I understand the reasons for that rarity, even the argued necessity for such, but it does quite squarely rebut your unsubstantiated allegation that western intellectuals do not question their system. You’re implying prejudice without proffering convincing argumentation for western intellectuals to doubt or question their system to the degree you feel they ought to.
…and it begins with you not understanding their faith, confidence, or support of liberal democracy from the start.
A bad one as we now all know from hindsight. The NYT article did a good job explaining how the financial system went wrong (and even alludes to how the political system was involved). Why do you think I wrote my post? In part, I hoped my post referencing the NYT article would help misguided Westerners who think their liberal democracy precludes human flaws from still causing problems of epic proportions.
That said, you seem to be driving towards the conclusion that the existence of problems or flaws in a liberal democracy ought to end the debates or criticisms concerning the systems of China, that western intellectuals should be humbled now and recognize that they have absolutely no place to continue believing or arguing that China would be better served or governed by reforms or a different political system altogether.
You cannot argue that.
So avoid going there unless you’re going to actually debate the specifics of political systems with regards to the interests of the people that system is to govern and serve. Don’t confuse the issue.
That’s funny, because the communism that China once aspired to and the remaining vestiges of central planning or state-ownership and state-regulation of key industries is premised upon the need to “regulate” aspects of economic life. The exemption of Sanlu products from quality and safety inspection had more to do with building up the image of a great Chinese domestic brand than it had to do with matters of economic practicality.
The trust can be put at random sampling, not at wholesale exemption. And let’s say you take that bargain, and you trust Sanlu. Well, when shit hits the fan, you cannot say “well, we had to trust them.” The people and their dead babies are not going to buy that. It is not an excuse.AQSIQ’s function was to protect the people, as a check against questionable corporate practices. It failed in its duty. There was a conflict of interests between the Olympics and the lives of China’s poor. It made the wrong choice in the eyes of the very people they were to serve.
You say the US is the same because it trust the financial institutions just as China trusted Sanlu. Well, not to nitpick, but the US trusted the SEC to regulate the financial institutions just as China trusted AQSIQ to safety check Sanlu. Both the SEC and AQSIQ failed the protect the people with their actions. As the NYT offered as an example, there were conflicts of interest with those in charge of the SEC, because of a revolving door between the SEC and Wall St. With AQSIQ, we can say there was an error of decision in exempting Sanlu completely, or we can say it is also a conflict of interest, between holding up a domestic golden child and doing its job of making sure products are safe. Both the SEC and AQSIQ had flaws, and they were both points of failure in their respective country’s “systems.”
THAT is a point.
1. I’m arguing for the main point of your title. If people think the issue is about the lack of regulation, then the lack of regulation in the US is not much better than that in China. If people believe the issue is about the “system”, then the system in the US is not much better either.
2. If you are arguing against me on the second point, on the fundamental flaws of the western political institutions, I’d like to ask you to divert for just 10 minutes from all the arguments you put forward and look at the reality. I could have argued the Utopia Marx described was better than yours but I didn’t. For all it’s worth, the liberal democracy has not delivered its promises even in the model democracy like the US or some European countries, let alone India and many other dysfunctional “democratic” countries. If you believe the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Communist block proved Communism a fundamentally flawed system, the same should go to the liberal democracy dream, or vice versa.
I beg to differ from the popular argument that despite all its flaws, “democracy” (a.k.a. whatever election mechanism is in place in the asserter’s current country) is better than any of the present alternatives. That’s just a myth or unproven belief, I could even categorize that as a religion. Comparing the managing styles of Ford and GM has long been in the MBA curriculum. How come it’s still a taboo to say anything about China’s current political system does not need a shock therapy?
I’m not an expert in political science but if you want the specifics on the flaws, one example is on election. You may easily google a few election mathematics pieces (yes by the mathematician, not the political thinkers) to see why the current election system does not deliver democracy and can be easily rigged. Or just for fun, check out the “Power to the People” episode of “Yes Prime Minister”. Take special note on Professor Marriott’s proposal.
Similar flaws can be found on the other premise like free press, separation of power, checks and balances etc. Many dismiss these flaws as technicalities but for me they are inherent to the “system”. Not much has improved, and the mere fact that that no major political reform has been on the agenda of any major democracy as well as the lack of political will and support to pursue such reform illustrates there’s very little self-correction built in the system.
3. About the regulation. Check out the Teaching Company’s “Modern Economics Issues” on the lectures about deregulation. The revolving door and conflict of interest problem is nothing new. It’s just one inherent flaw of regulating. Also under the strict regulations you got the utterly inefficient industries like the “borrow at 3%, loan at 6%, and hit the golf course at 3pm” banks. And they hit the walls anyway then the government had to bail them all out. These are exactly the arguments for the deregulation.
When Greenspan said “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” I don’t think he was wrong about the banks being self-protecting. None of the banks expected eternal house booming. They mostly failed to time the bust and/or predict the size of the bust. In this aspect, stricter regulation may delay, but would not prevent the crisis from happening.
The more fundamental issue is the US government’s economic policy that put house ownership over the national saving, and assume the consumption can be used as the long-lasting driving force behind the economic development. Had the US government taken away the tax incentives for house ownership and given more incentives to saving, people would not have thought the house they bought was their major investment and bet on the bubble. The easily available credit could have been used on more productive purposes.
1. Um, how was my “title” anything about “regulation?” My title was “NYT Reminds Us Westerners Not Much Better Than Chinese.” The title alone could fit either of your desires. Do you mean the post overall?
2. My post overall was not really an argument about regulation or systems. It was, at most and more accurately, an argument about human nature subverting any regulation or system, regardless of where it is from. Human nature in “the West” is fundamentally no better than human nature in China. So long as systems are created by humans, they can be subverted by humans. This is true for the SEC as it is for AQSIQ, for the US government as it is for the Chinese government.
Whoa….
Okay, so now it is clear that you are not really responding to my original post as you are trying to advance your opinion that liberal democracies should never be advocated as a system of governance because there are still flaws, inefficiencies, or bad results.
It is also clear that you either failed to read or comprehend all my cautions, admonishments, and corrections from my previous reply to you. You are still judging and dismissing liberal democracy with the question: “Do bad things happen in liberal democracy?”
That is NOT the criteria for judging political systems because it is a GIVEN (in everything except Marxist Utopian Communism) that bad things still happen regardless of the system. A system is a set of processes managing inputs yielding results.
You would do better to judge a political system with the question “Do more or less bad things happen when using Political System A instead of Political System B?”
But you are not doing this. This is the critical flaw in your reasoning and why I cannot take your opinion and its subsequent arguments seriously. You’re not asking the right questions.
My original post was about acknowledging and reminding ourselves that imperfections in human nature are common to us all. I doubt you’re going to argue with me on that. Since you’re intent on making this a debate about the morality or appropriateness of advocating “Western liberal democracy” as a political system to other countries, I’ll entertain you (as long as you promise not to become too ridiculous and my mind explodes).
I earlier stated that a copy-and-paste method of instituting liberal democracy in China (or other countries) is widely recognized by the educated masses to be folly. We know it doesn’t work. The reason is because systems must be adapted to the inputs. A system cannot be expected to yield the same results given different inputs.
Therefore, no one worth paying attention to is advocating that China or other countries adopt Western liberal democracy lock, stock, and barrel. Rather, the question and debate is about whether liberal democracy as a system can be:
1. Adapted so it can be instituted,
2. instituted so that it can be maintained, and
3. maintained so that it serves the governed better than the previous system…
…or not.
Those are three big questions with layers upon layers of questions underneath them. The question you seem to be hung up on is whether or not liberal democracy would serve the governed better than any other system. You seem to think not, without actually contemplating the above 3 questions. Moreover, you seem violently upset with people who think liberal democracy would, and try to trump them by offering examples of liberal democracy’s flaws or inefficiencies. You further reject that liberal democracy is better than any other present alternatives without actually bothering to discuss by which criteria “better” is judged by or what other present alternatives are.
In fact, I’m not even sure who you think you’re arguing with or what you’re arguing against. Most comically, you said: “I could have argued the Utopia Marx described was better than yours but I didn’t. ”
When did I describe any utopia? I didn’t. Are you arguing against an imaginary adversary? Are you projecting? Is this a straw man argument?
Did you even bother to read?
I even used bold to correct you to evaluate “liberal democracy” as a system of processes, not merely by the existence of disadvantageous results. It is evident you do not UNDERSTAND the premise of democracy. The premise of democracy is not to yield perfect or the best results. The premise of democracy is to empower people with a voice and responsibility in their government. THAT is the ideal it aspires to, NOT “perfection” or “utopia.”
ONE criteria by which liberal democracy is believed and judged to be “better” than, for example, an authoritarian system like that of China’s is the measure of “say” the governed has in their government. Liberal democracy as a system decentralizes power forcing people to mobilize each other through dissemination of information to get things done. An authoritarian system like China’s is a system where power is centralized in the hands of a few who are entrusted to be enlightened enough to know what is best and to do what is best for the governed, in such a way that dissemination of information is not inherently necessary and arguably subservient to “dissemination of consent.”
Please stop me to ask me to clarify if you do not understand what I am saying.
Advocates of China moving towards a system of liberal democracy believe decentralizing power into the hands of the governed would, amongst other things, afford the people more control in their lives by having more control of their government.
(Now, you can argue that individuals having control of their destiny is an idea or concept that is inherently Western and inapplicable or unwanted by the Chinese to shut down this entire discussion. It would either result in others arguing with you about the degree to which Chinese people desire control over their lives and environment and its application to political governance OR it would result in people just ignoring you as a quack from here on out.)
The ideal of democracy is that government serves the desires of the people, irregardless of how an enlightened god-king would interpret the “good” or “advantage” of the people’s desires. So yes, bad decisions can be made, and bad things an still happen. The built-in check of democracy are the people themselves, so that the more “enlightened” ones, by virtue of fearing that the “unenlightened” would get their way, are compelled to educate, promote, and mobilize others so they get their way. The system of democracy leverages self-interest to check itself and “correct” itself (”corrections” are more a matter of subjective opinion than objective truth).
The “liberal democracy” system arguably offers more channels of redress and recourse than an authoritarian system like China’s. Because it does, people who believe the governed should have the power to govern themselves advocate that system over others that appear to offer less channels of redress and recourse.
The promise of democracy is NOT: Everything will be good and perfect.
The promise of democracy IS: You will have a say.
Do you see how you’ve gotten it all wrong in how you’re judging and dismissing “liberal democracy” systems?
AFTER you understand what liberal democracy is about, THEN you can begin discussing whether or not it can be adapted to, instituted, and maintained in China to the benefit of the Chinese people. You cannot dismiss it before you understand it. You cannot dismiss its advocates before you understand for what reasons they believe it would be better. Your current argument only serves to counter any advocates of liberal democracy who genuinely believe it as a system will yield perfect results all the time.
Does anyone seriously believe that? Or have you created a straw man to burn?
Has it occurred to you that the straw man is standing right in your yard?
My main argument was about the institutions, which according to wikipedia, are “structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution).
When people from the west define China as an authoritarian country, they don’t make the judgment according to what are the ideas behind her constitution (Marxism Leninism etc) but on the social structures and mechanisms like: they don’t directly elect their president and congress, there’s only one political party, press are controlled by the nation, and so on. These are institutions. The advocates are pressing China to adopt the institutions from the west, arguing there’s no better alternative. I simply think they would work equally bad as what we have now and my main caution against adopting them fast is that these institutions don’t even deliver what they promised where they were originated.
It’s more about the mechanism to deliver the ideas of democracy than the ideas themselves. It’s more about economic policies dominated by interest groups rather than the long term benefits of the people. It’s more about organizing the seemingly opposite but in essence cooperative parties that sell out their members anyway. It’s more about elections that don’t deliver democracy. It’s more about whoever gets elected, the interest groups backed by capitals always get the upperhand. It’s more about the seemingly free press as a whole plays the propaganda role. It’s more about the government of the people, by the people, for the people seldom acts like one.
Whether the idea of liberal democracy is superior at delivering results or creating the processes does not matter here. The model institutions established to materialize these ideas basically fail them, at least in the US and UK, both of which I have lived and observed the political processes.
Part of my original post that you asked about was a response to Richard’s claim that “it’s about systems, not people”. I was saying, “your system sucks too so don’t harp on it”, but you were quick to defend the liberal democracy ideas which I wasn’t talking about. It’s like criticizing the Roman Catholic Church but got an response defending the God.
No, I’m quite certain the straw man is not in my yard and the definition you sought on Wikipedia for “institutions” matches what I have said and am saying.
Which is fine as your opinion, but as I said, you haven’t offered any actual arguments to explain why or make your opinion compelling to the people you’re trying to convince. This would require you to evaluate the challenges of adaption, institution, and maintenance I mentioned above. I’m not saying such things have never crossed your mind but you haven’t organized them and developed a platform of argument to advance your opinion. You’re just standing there “insisting” that your opinion is valid. Unfortunately, that is useless in a honest discussion because you’re not bringing anything to the table that both sides can rationally debate.
When did I say liberal democracy must be adopted fast? Are you seriously going to argue that the institutions of liberal democracy “don’t even” deliver what they promised where they were originated?
Short of you claiming massive conspiracies, the institution of free and fair elections has given people of democracies the power to elect whatever garbage they want into office, and then take that garbage out later. The institution of voting has given people of democracies the power to grant marriage rights to homosexuals, and then rescind that right later. The institution of free assembly have given people of democracies the power to organize legitimate trade unions separate from the state, political parties, PACs, volunteer and charity organizations, and protests. The institution of free speech has given the people of democracies the right to say, write, and promote a far wider spectrum of thought, ideas, and opinions than possibly ever seen in other political systems.
So what utter nonsense are you claiming?
I suspect I understand where your angst lies, but you’re fighting in all the wrong ways. You haven’t even identified your enemy and you’re wasting your time trying to argue the wrong things. Your argument that liberal democracy has failures and flaws sucks. That is not what you should be arguing as some trump card to prove your point. I’m repeating myself. The natural response to that is that liberal democracy still delivers more and better results for what it is designed to provide THAN another other system. It is IMPLICIT that there will be failures and flaws in ANY system, but the question is which system’s processes BETTER safeguard the desired results. Liberal democracy, from BOTH a political theory standpoint and as evidenced by mature democracies in the world, DO deliver.
The actual question you’re woefully failing to critique and contribute to is: IF the benefits of liberal democracy are DESIRED by a people, HOW can those people INSTITUTE liberal democracy for themselves and THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES? What ADAPTIONS are needed in the institution of liberal democracy may be needed to IMPROVE THE CHANCES of liberal democracy functioning as it is envisioned and maintained for the long run so that it may BENEFIT and SERVE the people who chose for it to be the system under which they agree to be governed by?
That question is long, and it can be longer, BECAUSE it is NOT an easy question. However, the mere existence of such questions, of such uncertainties or considerations, does NOT dismiss the legitimacy of believing liberal democracy to be a worthy system to adopt, emulate, or institute for a people. It does NOT dismiss the argument that liberal democracy can offer results by virtue of its processes that the governed would be more satisfied with.
And what is the primary measure of satisfaction in the concept of liberal democracy? Having a voice and a say in how one is governed. It is less about the results as it is about the process. It is easier to accept the results when one feels one had an influence in those results. People of democracies accept the results, even the bad ones, because they understand how those results came about and their own role in the processes which yielded those results.
People in authoritarian systems can only helplessly view their government and its processes largely as a black box. They largely only understand that they must consent, must abide, must obey, and even when they are offered channels of redress, recourse, or input, they must accept that there are few institutional guarantees. Consider, if you will, the disparate confidence people have in the “constitutions” of the United States vis a vis China in delineating and protecting the rights and freedoms of the people. In the United States, there are skeptics, but in China, the general sentiment is that the “Constitution” is largely a joke not to be relied upon.
These, amongst others, are both qualitative and quantitative differences. The quantification might be a bit harder, since scientifically rigorous surveying and polling is not allowed in China.
Anyway, as I said, you’re attacking the wrong thing. You’re trying to attack the concept of liberal democracy, trying to argue how it is so fundamentally flawed it should not even be entertained. You’re going to lose that debate every time, I can already tell, so long as you keep trying to argue the way you have.
Instead, you should be arguing or attacking the method through which liberal democracy is adopted or instituted, even forced upon another country or people. You will be FAR more fruitful in criticizing and trumping the western intellectuals of pro-democracy activists you loathe.
If you want to insist on arguing that liberal democracy is just as bad as any other system currently feasible in the world, then you need better arguments. You need to show that more people are unsatisfied with liberal democracies living under liberal democracies than those who are. The mere existence of flaws or failures is not your trump card because, again, liberal democracy never promised to rid the governed of those possibilities. You need to argue that more people living under liberal democracies prefer to have less power over their government than they have right now. Why? Because the ideal aspired to by liberal democracies is the decentralization of power, granting power to the people, so that they have a choice in how their government functions.
Only when you are able to demonstrate successfully that liberal democracy is failing to offer the people what it was designed to offer (choice, a say in their government) will your argument that we should dismiss liberal democracy as a system to be advocated might gain sufficient traction.
Even the Chinese, the Chinese intellectuals, members of the Chinese government acknowledge that the ideals of liberal democracy are desirable, even universally so. However, they’re ahead of the curve compared to you. They at least understand that their apprehension with adopting liberal democracy lies in apprehensions about how it can be successfully adopted, adapted, implemented, instituted for their country and their people.
You see, they don’t trust the people to govern themselves. They’re afraid, amongst other things, of all those uneducated have-nots suddenly using their new found power to deprive the haves of what power and property. This is all very understandable and it is indeed a difficult conundrum. The idea right now is to educate the masses before granting power to them, but there’s an inherent conflict of interest there…and who is to decide when the masses have been sufficiently educated to be accorded the power to govern themselves?
In liberal democracies, power was arguably simply granted. Oh, of course we can note that women’s suffrage did not exist for a long time, that suffrage was denied to certain races for a long time, that electioneering and corruption existed with the institutions of democracy and voting. Yes, we can point to all of those things for they were true. Yet how is it that women and non-whites eventually came to have suffrage? How is it that electioneering, ballot-stuffing, vote-buying, etc. have been largely stamped out? Because accepting the institutions of decentralized power and the right to vote did more to compel the people under a liberal democracy to educate each other and protect each other (and by extension their own) and the powers their system grants them. Merely placing and guaranteeing power in the hands of the masses compels civil activism whereas it is arguable that authoritarian systems discourages civil activism.
Which system would you trust to pioneer and drive education and dissemination of information and thought amongst the masses? Sure, you can hope for an “enlightened ruler” of for authoritarian systems, or you can place your faith in a system like liberal democracy.
Now, I made a lot of points here for you to reflect upon. The most important are the points relating to how you’re arguing against liberal democracy all wrong. The others are for you to consider just why many intellectuals still uphold liberal democracy as a desirable system to have, even if they are apprehensive to adopt it. Remember, many Chinese intellectuals do not discard the values, ideals, or even the institutions of liberal democracy, they just believe they cannot make a stable transition to it without meeting certain pre-requesites they have not yet achieved (such as prosperity or education).
Why am I still arguing on the God? By using the word “system”, then interpret this word as the ideas of “liberal democracy” you’ve been trying to putting words in my mouth again and again.
Let’s get the record straight. This whole thing started by my post asserting:
“If you have to look over the greedy nature of the capitalism and dub this as a system failure, then both failures still look very similar to me. … the Chinese government loves to show its care for the people, same as the US government and the reps, even with the benefits of high property tax income and low inflation rate, so they instituted the stupid policies anyway.”
All I’m talking is how the stupid policies are made under the badly formed political institutions. I’ve further pointed out the political institutions in the US afforded stupid economic policies that put interest group’s benefits over that of the people, which in my opinion is the root cause of this crisis. But when and where have I ever questioned anything about the ideals of liberal democracy not being a good thing?
Good things are plenty in this world. The question is how to get them. Democracy is even in China’s constitution and had been one of the linchpin for the communists to win China over the Nationalists, but ironically they are still categorized as authoritarian or totalitarian, not because they had ever proudly claimed they didn’t want democracy, but because the institutions established are not considered democratic. So please spare me the enlightenment lectures. Instead, look at how these ideas are implemented in the reality.
Political and social institution is about how the governments are organized, how the elections are conducted, how the power is shared and how the policies are made. Not about if they should be done, but about how. My assertion that the “model” political institutions in the US have not delivered the liberal democracy ideals is based on my observations. I consider the current economic crisis a strong illustration of this, perhaps in the same way as many guys considered the tainted milk scandal illustrated how bad China’s political institution was. There’s no way I can force my observations to everyone so you are free to hold your opinion.
The idea that I somehow bear the responsibility to prove why the liberal democracy ideals can or cannot be adapted to China is quite a stretch. It’s like when I said Roman Catholic Church’s priesthood structure is bad then I bear the responsibility to prove the God do or do not exist. No I don’t think I need to go that far.
All I’m saying is the model political institution in the west equally sucks. I don’t have to provide a solution. As a matter of fact I don’t know the solution. But at least I think I know what doesn’t work.
BTW do I sound angry? If that’s the impression I need to further work on my English.
“Arguing on the God?” Huh?
Putting words in your mouth?
In your second comment:
To which I replied:
…which you did not try to “correct” until now? And you’re saying I’m putting words in your mouth? No, I don’t think so. Later, you also said:
Uh, did I disagree with this? Not really, my post actually explicitly references the financial crisis as a failure with the system. It is BECAUSE these failures (in the United States/West and China) and that the root causes of these failures look so similar that I wrote this post! This post was to use such failures and their similarities to remind Westerners who would otherwise be so assuredly self-righteous to be more humble!
I am not debating with you on something we agree upon. I am debating with you on something you veritably said and argued up to now for.
I didn’t accuse you of questioning the ideals of liberal democracy “being a good thing.” I accused you of incorrectly dismissing western systems or the advocacy of western systems by arguing how liberal democracy is flawed.
You cite failures of institutions and systems within liberal democratic or Western systems. To what purpose? I already corrected you from the beginning that no one is arguing that such systems would be perfectly immune from failures or flaws. Rather, you cited such failures in an effort to argue against the advocacy of liberal democracy. To quote:
…amongst others.
Come on, you even argue that that if communism as a political system is to be discarded for the collapse of the USSR, the “liberal democracy dream” ought to as well, ostensibly for the current financial crisis, yet another “flaw” that you believe is “fundamental.” You argue aainst liberal democracy as being better than alternatives on the basis that you associate these flaws or failures as part of liberal democracy, and not (as I argue) inherent inefficiencies rooted in human nature REGARDLESS of system. You’ve gone on and one trying to cite examples of how liberal democracy fails and is flawed while I’ve tried repeatedly to explain what liberal democracy actually is, trying to correct your mistaken criteria for evaluating liberal democracy.
Right. But you have to define what is “good” and then use that definition to evaluate which political system is more conducive towards serving the people in getting those “good things.” You have been bashing liberal democracy as being no better than its alternatives without actually bothering to do that. You just cite failure without discussing efficacy of the processes of liberal democracy vis a vis authoritarian systems.
ARE YOU SERIOUS? Did you just admonish me to look at reality after arguing that China is democratic by virtue of having it written in their constitution and having used it as a battle-cry when fighting the Nationalists? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Nevermind that it was I, above, who first reminded you that democracy is appealing even amongst Chinese in China. You’re telling me to look at reality when you’re preferring to use what is written on a constitution over how the actual institutions in reality operate? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
The REALITY is that the institutions of China don’t even come close to the modern and popular interpretation of the term “democracy” as a form known as “republic” much less true traditional definition of “democracy.”
When judging what can be considered “democratic” or not, one looks at reality, but I have no idea what warped reality you’re living in that led you to even think for a moment that it was even remotely logical to make the statement you made above. They are not considered democratic because they are NOT. Are you going to argue that they are? On the basis that the word “democracy” is in the Chinese constitution (that is not de facto the supreme authority of the land) and because 60 years ago the Communists invoked it (but never actually implemented it)?
You’re more or less repeating what I said, and I hope you’re not trying to pass it off as what you’ve been saying all along.
Which is WHY I admonished you to re-evaluate what you think liberal democracy promises to deliver. This is why I have repeatedly explained to you that the premise of liberal democracy is, in part, about empowering the governed with a voice, a say in their governance. It is not about categorically and permanently preventing/avoiding failures such as the financial crisis you’re upholding as your trump card substantiation for your opinion.
FURTHERMORE, insofar as you want to argue about whether liberal democracy is better or no better than its alternatives, you’d be wise to show how liberal democracy fails to give more voice, more power to the governed than alternative political systems. Since the premise of liberal democracy is to decentralize power and empower the governed, I would strongly argue that liberal democracy achieves that result FAR better than authoritarian systems like China’s!
DO YOU DISAGREE?
If you do, please offer a more intelligent argument than grasping at straws.
Okay, you’re an idiot. In a discussion or debate where you advance a position, it is your responsibility to substantiate or defend your position so long as you wish to remain in the discussion or debate. I disagreed with your position and stated my reasons why. You disagreed with my disagreements but your arguments are not convincing, compelling, or even logical at times. I’ve tried to steer this discussion to be more productive. I’ve even tried to help you identify what it is you SHOULD be attacking to make a reasonable and compelling argument against Western advocacy of liberal democracy for China. Unable to rise to the challenge, you’re now retreating into the unassailable position of “well, its just my opinion, I’m not trying to force it upon you or anything.” Right, if you were so 100% convicted of that, you wouldn’t have wasted your time after your first comment trying to argue with me how liberal democracy is not better than its alternatives.
If you don’t wish to remain in the debate or discussion, you can excuse yourself as you seem to be doing now. That’s fine, and I will continue to be utterly incredulous with your previous arguments and defenses.
And I’m saying it doesn’t equally suck and I’ve offered arguments why such as the greater satisfaction and faith that the governed have in having a measure of input, voice, and control over their government. You, on the other hand, just sat there using straw man arguments, trying to prove how it is equally bad just because there exist failures and flaws. No one demanded you to offer a solution or a “perfect” system. I demanded you to substantiate why you think it is no better, why it “equally sucks,” and to rebut my arguments demonstrating how it is “better” than alternatives (which is contrary to your stated position). You can either defend your position, rebut my position, or excuse yourself for either being unable to do either or because you’re too lazy to do so.
I reckon you’ll comfort yourself with saying you’re just too lazy to do so. That’s fine, but it won’t change the fact that I’m quite sure you’re unable to defend your position or rebut mine.
P.S. – Yes, I’m baiting you a bit.
We’re in the boring cycle of repeating ourselves…
You said: “Not really, my post actually explicitly references the financial crisis as a failure with the system. It is BECAUSE these failures (in the United States/West and China) and that the root causes of these failures look so similar that I wrote this post!”
Does the system here means the “liberal democratic ideals” or the institutions that claimed to implement these ideals? I believe you said you meant human nature earlier. At one point you said “THAT is the point” where from the context I figure the “THAT” must have meant regulation but then you retracted and said it was not. So I really can’t tell what you’re trying to say. Is this all just the tactic that you want to bait me to say what you want to hear?
“System” there refers to financial system present in the American (and arguably Western) system of liberal democracy. I’ve noticed you tack on “ideals” behind “liberal democracy” and I’m not sure why you’re doing that. “Liberal democracy” is a system. “Liberal democracy ideals” refer to the ideals that underpin that system. Please avoid confusing the two unnecessarily. I don’t think I’ve done it and I’m not sure why you’re doing it.
In the quote you reference me, if I may so elaborate since you don’t quite “get it,” I’m acknowledging that a failure was able to happen in a liberal democracy or a liberal democratic system. It is NOT about a fundamental flaw OF and UNIQUE to the IDEALS that underpin liberal democracy. Be careful where you’re trying to go with that.
I did say human nature earlier and throughout because, if you were following along, my argument is that failures of any system are given because any system is reduced to the humans that operate that system and the human nature that plagues humanity.
I have no idea what you’re saying about where you got “regulation” from. I didn’t retract anything.
I’m baiting you to try to keep on arguing. I’m curious to see how you’d substantiate your opinion that liberal democracy “equally sucks.” It isn’t necessarily a wrong opinion (if you know how to argue), its just that you haven’t offered any convincing arguments for your opinion. Understand?
Ok, fine. Your characterisation of your argument is fine (though clearly at odds with the text) if you don’t want your argument to say anything other than the bleeding obvious – stupidity is bad etc. But if you want it to say something significant about “Westerners” and the viewpoints you raise (about political systems) then it doesn’t. It only says something about racist Westerners, but you don’t need a Michael Lewis article to say that.
Americans v Westerners. I suspect that Wall St probably had more admirers in China than it did in Europe.
Significance is relative. Clearly you feel yourself to be above the message of my post. I can’t please everyone.
In my opinion, however, the fact that you feel compelled to continue trying to draw distinctions, exclusions, or exemptions for Europeans or otherwise along racial or national lines means you’ve missed the whole point despite claiming to “get it.” It makes me suspect you’re more annoyed with being lumped in with the Chinese or the Americans or whoever than you’re appreciative of the fact that this entire episode reminds us that we’re all fallible, we’re all imperfect, and we should REMIND ourselves of that BEFORE we fall into complacent self-righteousness.
If “Westerners” looking down upon the Chinese were not a significant phenomenon, I certainly wouldn’t have felt the NYT article reminded me of that phenomenon and thus felt compelled to write a post drawing those parallels. Do you honestly need me to point out to you examples of Westerners exhibiting contempt, superiority, or self-righteousness towards the Chinese?
Again, my post was not about comparing systems in any exhaustive academic sense. It was remarking about how the frustration and anger people felt about how the financial system failed us reminded me of the same frustration and anger people felt about the China dairy scandal (amongst other problems of China and of the various “systems” and/or “people” of China). In both instances, a “system” failed and many people were hurt. In both instances, people are angry and frustrated that people chose short-term self-interest over the long-term interests of the community, that the very people or checks or institutions meant to protect the community at large failed or had conflicts of interest, etc. etc. etc. In BOTH instances, there are people from ELSEWHERE who are pointing and laughing, blaming, criticizing, and feeling self-righteous that it wouldn’t happen with them.
But it does, perhaps in different forms, but the human flaws of greed and self-interest, etc. manifest themselves in every culture, society, country, system. Why? Because for all our differences on the surface, we’re all fallible limited beings underneath. The point was to remember that criticism is one thing, but self-righteousness (common amongst Westerners towards Chinese from my perspective) is another.
I’m sorry you’ve been sidetracked into not appreciating how we need to occasionally remind ourselves of that. In fact, the Chinese need to be reminded of it as well at times, but I’m writing for English-readers here at CNR, who are more commonly Westerners. My post was just another reminder. It clearly resonated with some, but apparently not with you. Too bad.
I’m just arguing against a switch and bait tactic, nothing more or less interesting than that. It’s not worth your curiosity about my motivation, most of which I think is barking up the wrong tree but then I would say that, of course. I enjoyed your post, and I think it could have gone even further, but I thought reducing it through the use of the straw man headline to another “why do westerners look down on Chinese people” demeaned it. It’s perfectly valid to argue over whether westerners look down on Chinese, or each other, or vice versa, or whether Europeans look down on everyone, or everyone looks down on Americans now, including themselves, but there are plenty (too many!) places to do that and your post seemed to be making more interesting arguments than that. That’s all.
Switch and bait? Uh, you can call ANY title a switch and bait simply by virtue of not liking what you ended up reading. Maybe you came in with a preconceived notion that this article was about something else. For my intents and purposes, I set out to show how the frustration apparent in the NYT article with the economic crises we’ve all found ourselves in is similar to the frustration many Westerners feel towards the crises, scandals, etc. they experience or witness in China but may have previously felt comfortable dismissing as something uniquely Chinese. The causes (our human nature and human flaws) predicate it all, so…again, NYT reminds us Westerners aren’t much better than Chinese. Both have flaws, both screw up, and the reasons are all reducible to something we all share: our human nature.
I guess you could accuse my title of being a straw man, but its more accurately a generalization because titles can only be so specific. I’m not attributing something that isn’t acknowledged to exist, again, with many but obviously not all.
Richard, again, this post was not to argue that Westerners look down on Chinese, it was a reminder for those who do to not be so quick to be self-righteous. I’m sorry it wasn’t the post you now claim you thought or wish it were. You’re most welcome to advance more interesting arguments or thoughts for your own interest and as a separate discussion. Just don’t malign mine.
“China versus The West: different toilets and different toilet paper, but both of our shits still stink.”
Have you ever entered a squatter toilet and been transfixed by the biggest pile of shit ever to come out of a single person’s ass? Americans and Chinese both have smelly shit, but the Chinese can really dump it out–and they’re horrible and hiding the stink.
horrible AT hiding the stink.
LoL, I dunno, I’ve heard many a legendary tale from Americans about their own lincoln logs.
The US does financial poisoning.
China does physical poisoning.
Pick your poison.
very good comment!
Great post, Kai. Happens I agree with Richard on the title. Since starting to follow your contributions I’ve been struck by your incisive intelligence and, unfortunately, immediately assumed a premeditated design behind the exact wording. You’re aware of, and good at, framing of arguments, and this title does poison the well.
As a South African I also consider myself Western, culturally, but certainly not involved in the “Wall Street” system. In fact, we’re without doubt further removed from it than China herself.
Good post, like I said, but spoiled by the assumption in the title.
That’s fine and I understand the opinion. I’ll be content with the title having done its job. Cheers.
“both of our shits still stink”. Is “SHIT/S” countable or not?
Hm, maybe not. Shrug.
For the record, the other Richard in this thread is not me, the real Richard.