| China is the victim of the globalization! | |
|---|---|
| May 7, 2008 01:43 |   |
 | When reading FT news, I came across a letter written by a Chinese reader. In his letter, he claims that China is more a victim than a beneficiary of the globalization. He admits that China has scored great achievements in recent 30 years since the reform and opening policy was adopted. However, China has sacrificed too much. The environment has been deteriorating seriously. The crystal rivers, blue sky and green lands are gradually disappearing. China’s national industries and traditional handicraft industry are also vanishing. Many natural resources are exploited by foreign corporations. Ironically, China has had to import the resources from abroad. On the other hand, China is gradually losing its foreign exchange reserves due to the dollar depreciation and RMB quick appreciation. Considering of these problems, China is the victim of the globalization, not the beneficiary. What do you think of his opinion, reasonable or not? |
| May 7, 2008 11:34 | #1 |
| It is certainly one way to look at it. In most ways I preferred China in 1978 to China 2008 - but I am not Chinese so my impression is only that of a tourist. It would take a master accountant to evaluate if China's ROI (return on investment) with the opening up policy is worth the social, environmental and cultural losses. |
| May 7, 2008 13:16 | #2 |
| Everyone is a victim of globalization, except the billionaires that control multinational corporations (note: many of them are Chinese). Globalization is the twin brother of many evils, including over production, over consumption, materialism, commercialization, and environmental destruction. I think most Chinese, especially because many are poor, are among the worst victims. All the conveniences and pleasures we get from globalization, like cheap chocolates and fancy cellphones, will be meaningless (not to mention short lived) when basic necessities like water, rice, meat, and vegetables become very expensive. I'm sure everyone has noticed how prices have risen in the past few years. |
| May 8, 2008 02:29 | #3 |
| Muddieknees, I agree with you on your point about the many evils that Globalization has bought us. I for one am tired of being a victim of it. The sooner we can return to a command economy the better. It would go a long way to reducing all of this out of control consumerism and over production. Comrade Dodger. |
| May 8, 2008 08:41 | #4 |
| (((China is the victim of the globalization!))) You got it Dodger! China has a window at the other choice, all China needs is to open the window and take a pick at what is there, you can open the window to neighbor North Korea, then you can turn to the other side and you can see Maynard, it is ugly out there. That is how China used to look like not that long ago. |
| May 8, 2008 11:29 | #5 |
| Dodger--I surrender. You have the gift of wit! But be careful with calling yourself a "comrade". The word has a nasty connotation here in China. =P Seriously, I don't see why everything has to be either black or white. This is the kind of thinking I'm worried about: Hmm... let's see... if we take away globalization, the world will be as backward as North Korea. We should globalize and free the economy. Let's start with agricultural subsidies. We should stop protecting our farmers against cheap imports. If they complain, they should sell their land and allow the market to find a more efficient use for it. I'm sure some land developer will gobble them up. Uhm... and why not do away with our nationalized our oil industry? Oil producing nations and oil companies will be forced by the market to give us fair prices. Lassiez-faire economics is perfect! We don't need regulations! If we keep them, we will become like North Korea and will be ruled for decades by an ugly shmuck with bad hair. And, yes, over-protection can be problematic too. If someone wants to start a thread on that, I'd be happy to share. =) |
| May 8, 2008 12:06 | #6 |
| BCCI....Bank of Commerce and Credit International is a good example and case study of the ilks of globalization. |
| May 8, 2008 13:01 | #7 |
| going bk to commanding (centralized) economy is going back to poverty-north Korea,cuba(?) |
| May 8, 2008 22:11 | #8 |
| Muddieknees, Can I presume that you are American? Globalization is a new spin word for what has been happening for centuries. Its called world trade in plain speak. Lobby groups in many countries have urged their governments to give them protection because they cannot compete in the market and the American farm industry is a good example. Is it good or bad? I cannot say, but is certainly does not resemble a “free market” It has never existed. The closes we have come to that is in the late 19th centenary in the US which resulted in massive growth. When a certain French finance Minister gathered a group of businessmen together a couple of hundred years ago to ask them how he could help them they cried in unison “leave us alone” coining the phrase “Lassiez faire” I still dream of seeing that day. When Atlas does finally decide to shrug I hope that I am not around to see it. When/if that happens we will all be, to use the local connotation of the term “comrade” buggered. JC, thanks for your words of support. At least there is still one free thinking American still out there. Dodger. |
| May 8, 2008 22:30 | #9 |
| Muddieknees, comrade does not have the evil connitation as you describe. Lassies-faire has become the history during the evolution of capitalistic free market. If Lassies-faire were still adopted today, there would be much shorter intervals between each economic cycle, which means there could have been several depression since big depression in 1920's |
| May 8, 2008 22:35 | #10 |
| <<Can I presume that you are American?>> Dodger--I'm a simple global citizen with lots of free time and Internet access. But I hear you. The market is often better than governments in shaping economies. This is why many capitalist nations have been very successful. But a free market has its flaws too. These flaws include the growth of monopolies, the concentration of capital (i.e. money), and the sacrifice of long-term benefits for short term profit (e.g. environment degradation, failure to secure food supplies, etc.). Any right-minded economist, even one trained in the most lassiez-faire schools, will not turn a blind eye to these issues. |
Page 1 of 2 < Previous Next > Page:
Post a Reply to: China is the victim of the globalization!
Copyright © 1998-2024 All rights reserved.