« What Do Investors Know? | Main | Do Windfall-Profits Taxes Apply to Politicians?» Don Boudreaux
July 02, 2007
Chinese Atrocity
Don Boudreaux
One of the great mistakes committed by many pro-liberty enthusiasts in America is to forget how free we Americans still are compared to persons elsewhere, especially to persons outside of western Europe and the English-speaking world. Yes, we Americans are not as free as we should be; our government insults and harasses us continually with pernicious regulations and taxes; our "leaders" typically are venal liars, with no more personal integrity than ordinary pick-pockets -- they would be clowns worthy of belly-laughs if their access to power over us were only pretend.
And, yes, the "war on terror" has further diminished our freedoms -- just as any "war" on an abstraction will inevitably create excessive power for the state.
But compared to people in much of the world Americans remain free. I can write this blog and say pretty much whatever I wish to say. I might be called nasty names by commentors, friendly critics might express their constructive criticisms, but I never worry about being arrested, fined, or imprisoned. I can call George Bush whatever names I want; I can accuse the Congress or the Supreme Court or the FDA of stupidity, cupidity, or even treachery, and then sleep like a baby at night without fear of a midnight pounding on my door.
I want to be more free -- much more free. But at the same time I recognize that the fate being suffered now by these four innocent young men in China is a fate that I and other Americans need not fear.
The goons who run the government in Beijing imprison people merely for writing publicly about democracy and other alternatives to the centralized behemoth bequeathed to China by Chairman Mao. The Chinese government prevents people merely from expressing opinions that, in the view of the government, might "subvert state power."
These political prisoners should be freed immediately. And those of us who live in freer societies should continue to press for all of our rights, and not forget or to take for granted the ones that we do possess. And we should condemn the greater assaults on freedom committed against our fellow human beings in other, less-free parts of the world.
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/19738394
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chinese Atrocity:
Comments
I'm glad you're not going to be arrested, imprisoned, or fined, Don.
However, let's just pretend for a moment that I'm a hedge fund manager and I happen to be as outspoken as you. Maybe I even have a blog. How long do you suppose it will be before a politician has the SEC and the sate attorney general descending on my hedge fund to drag me through a lengthy audit or even find some piddly trade on which I failed to fulfill the conditions of one of the billion regulations for which they can bring criminal charges? Even if they prove nothing in the end, what do you suppose that will cost me in terms of health, money and reputation? I'm sure I can avoid all that by simply "contributing" to their campaigns - unless there's more to gain from making a public spectacle of me in the name of the evil "rich" in the hedge fund industry.
Did we not notice what Spitzer did to Grasso and several CEO's? They've been exonerated by the courts, but at what cost? Or the campaign waged by Giuliani against Milken in the 1980's? Milken was barred from the industry for parking securities - a common practice among all investment banks.
Regulators bully smaller companies, who are least able to defend themselves, regularly.
Still, as you point out, there are worse places to be. Sadly, with the resurgence of regulation and government might, we are moving in their direction toward tyranny instead of leading the way to freedom.
Posted by: methinks | Jul 2, 2007 9:35:05 AM
"resurgence of regulation and government might, we are moving in their direction toward tyranny instead of leading the way to freedom."
Well put sir. Too be truly free we must act like Somalia or tribal Pakistan.No central government no rules no regulations. We could operate on centuries old traditions of personal honor and vendetta no need for sissy tort lawyers, courts or any other artificial entities.
Posted by: ayn ryann | Jul 2, 2007 10:38:15 AM
To illustrate, if you go to China and try to google the term "democracy" I am told a blank screen arises. or if you google Tianneman Square, rather than seeing articles on the 1989 events, you see pictures of a pretty park and a discussion of the Square as it is - nothing about its historical importance.
Sounds sort of like how the Depression and New Dealers were and are written up in our history books.
Posted by: Mike | Jul 2, 2007 11:46:34 AM
It seems that people such as ayn ryan live in perpetual fear of other people unless they are perpetually regulated by state power.
Fear is the greatest corrupter of all.
Absolutely no sense of the evolution of social sensibility.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Jul 2, 2007 12:15:01 PM
No surprise, Sam. Krugman was just on CNBC saying that the "opportunist", Murdoch, was "taking advantage" of the unregulated media in the United States in buying Dow Jones and WSJ. Krugman's view was that if the media were tightly controlled by the government, then people with opinions different from his would never see the light of day. Pravda!
Posted by: methinks | Jul 2, 2007 1:03:27 PM
I went a little bit further and was reading their posting of the Chinese Constitution. It's quite an interesting read; but it is full of inconsistencies.
One such example is that Article 1 is too ambiguous and could easily be called into conflict with Article 35 and Article 41; especially in the case of jailed journalists or students advocating democratic reforms.
I wonder how many Americans would read this constitution and think it, in some way, be better than the one we have. Although the US and Chinese Constitution's were written at different periods in history, it does give some impression that the US 'framers' intented for government to be restricted as much as possible whereas the Chinese Constitution seems to take the best part of the US constitution and then reverse the powers granted to state into the state granting powers to people.
Posted by: colson | Jul 2, 2007 1:07:52 PM
The problem with "pushing for" or "denouncing" anything is this: It is all talk. Talk, as in the UN-sort of ineffectual "action" that they have come to perfect. Promising, threatening, letter-writing, &c. all serve to soothe egos and consciousnesses, but it doesn't actually *do* anything.
Posted by: skh.pcola | Jul 2, 2007 1:29:45 PM
Well according to the state of Massachusets I'm a possible terrorist because I don't believe in the supremecy of the federal Gov't over that of the states.
As such I'm considered a possible dissident.
I ahve a love/hate relationship with this country full of fools.
Posted by: Jon | Jul 2, 2007 2:15:35 PM
How can we complain of the Chinese government atrocities and then take them on for our number 1 trading partner using their communist slave wage labor? Where's the consistency?
You guys have me so confused I'm not sure what you all want. Methinks all concerned with the rights of hedge fund managers...LOL.
As soon as I'm done with my Alaska's Wolf Man book I'm going straight to The Road to Serfdom, Capitalism and Freedom, The World is Flat and Atlus Shrugged to see if they make any more sense then you all and Al Gore's The Assault on Reason.
Posted by: muirgeo | Jul 2, 2007 2:54:03 PM
Muirgeo,
If we didn't by goods from them those people working for those wages, though there tend to be less of them working in gov't controlled and coerced jobs, would probably starve to death.
So you would say that we should condem Chinese Gov't Action and NOT buy chinese goods in protest, causing unemployment and starvation in China.... yeah that will teach 'em.
Instead, the more we trade with them, the more likely we are to force them into the global marketplace and at least give some free-market concessions to their businesses if they hope to survive. Oh and by the way we employ ashitload of poepl that would otherwise be calling the rice fields home.
Jesus, I can't believe that you actually mean the things that come out of your mouth... all stick and no carrot!
Posted by: Jon | Jul 2, 2007 3:02:03 PM
"Methinks all concerned with the rights of hedge fund managers...LOL."
Why, gee, here I thought you would be too. After all, sweet John Edwards found a part-time job paying $500K at a hedge fund called Fortress! He did so, according to him, to "learn about the relationships between the capital markets and poverty". Surely, such a valuable research tool in the fight against poverty would be championed by a neo-Marxist like Muirgeo!
Incidentally: wage rate is not what determines slavery. I'll just let you work that out.
Posted by: methinks | Jul 2, 2007 3:32:01 PM
China is twisted.
Muirgeo, the US government doesn't take the Chinese government for a trading partner.
To me, it is equally as odd to say Virginia takes Maryland as its number one trading partner or Fairfax County takes Arlington County as its number one trading partner.
Trading partner ranking is an outcome, and country as a measuring unit is used by convention, that comes about from the billions of consumption and production decisions made every day. Governments like to regulate the things that go on within the borders, but nobody draws up a plan whereby it is decided that China will be the NUMBER 1 partner, sorry Canada.
Hiring a worker in China to provide a product is a pretty different event that paying a Chinese Party Official to lock up some internet users. Now if that party official decides to pwn that worker, well, that's on the worker.
Jon points out that boycotting trade with Chinese people because of the government's policies may actually be counter-productive. Better to trade goods and services with them, engage the people who happen to have been born under that twisted regime on the world scene, and then transmit some ideas about the proper role of government along with that order for more Bratz dolls or whatever.
It is clearer thinking if you distinguish between people and the government that presides over them. I find that they are never the same group.
Posted by: scott clark | Jul 2, 2007 3:42:43 PM
I'm pretty sure that China isn't our "number one trading partner." Also, the trade the we (the US) and other First World countries engage in with the Chinese people, allows more of those workers to rise out of abject poverty.
You can disagree with the notion that increased consumerism is a bad idea, but I believe that time will prove that increased wealth will equate to higher dissatisfaction among the oppressed of China, leading to even more liberalization of property rights. I think the ultimate result will be a toppling of the Communist Party there. People naturally want the fruits of thier labor.
Posted by: skh.pcola | Jul 2, 2007 4:14:52 PM
Muirgeo,
I have thought long and hard about what I am going to say. This is not meant as a personal attack, but criticism that you may be able to take and work on. You need to open your mind more than you've shown willingness/ability to do so on this forum.
You bring up your arguments, they get torn down, and you blame us for finding fault in your logic/data. When we have raised a case so strongly against your position, you stop posting on that thread and you move on to another thread with essentially the same stance. Unless you are intentionally trolling, there is something strange about your behavior.
Sorry but it's true.
Your statement "How can we complain of the Chinese government atrocities and then take them on for our number 1 trading partner using their communist slave wage labor? Where's the consistency?" is more evidence.
You apparently think of politics starting at the state-level and work downward. You don't seem to understand that People benefit on both sides of the Pacific because of the trade. Our trade with China does not enable China to be autocratic, they have been this way during 99% of their recorded history. However, the trade does lift the economic status of both of our countries. The benefit that trade has brought to China is real. Far fewer Chinese live impoverished lives directly because of trade with wealthy nations. My wife is Chinese, I have spent over a month there, and I personally know over 100 Chinese. It is true that Beijing still has a stranglehold on freedom, but everyone there knows that trading with the US has helped their lives. The more contact with the west, the better for them. And part of the contact shows the normal Chinese person how un-free they still are. My guess is that by 2010, enough young business people in China will be sophisticated enough to start pushing for real freedoms/democracy much like we saw the students do in the late 1980s.
But in general, it is illogical to criticize the actions of our government while trying to give it more power. You have done this on many occasions. Do you think the US government will be more "reasonable" if it has more ability to tax, regulate, and monitor the citizenry.
Posted by: python | Jul 2, 2007 4:23:25 PM
Python, this strange behaviour has been happening for at least two or three months. Same exact arguments, same proclamations of wanting to learn, same eventual meltdown - generally, the same pattern of behaviour. I'm no longer taking it seriously.
More importantly, How much has life improved for your wife's family? Is there any sense of real change beyond increased material wealth?
Posted by: methinks | Jul 2, 2007 4:34:49 PM
Python,
I'm still open to the value of free trade. My problem is that it seems unfair to have American workers competing against Chinese workers who aren't operating by the same rules. Some people call it a race to the bottom that benifits mega corporations but hurts workers and the middle class. The cheaper stuff for Americans to buy is negatively offset by their decrease in wages.
I'm not saying this is right it's just my position or understanding of the situation right now.
I don't see how you can have an endless supply of workers and ever expect the middle class to hold its position. Right now I'm not convinced that free trade isn't a main reason for growing economic disparity worldwide.
It also bothers me that people think we need a continued expansion of popullation to keep oyr markets growing. That seems to be the standard call by many economist but it leads to several logical failures IMO.
Posted by: muirgeo | Jul 2, 2007 5:01:29 PM
But in general, it is illogical to criticize the actions of our government while trying to give it more power. You have done this on many occasions. Do you think the US government will be more "reasonable" if it has more ability to tax, regulate, and monitor the citizenry.
Posted by: python
You tell me I keep sticking to the same old points but you keep mis-representing them.
I firmly believe government has too much power and this can be reigned in by better representation of the peoples desires. Yes I do think the government will be more reasonable if it represents the will of the people over corporate interest.
Tell me python if not the people WHO DO you want to set up the rules of business and society. People with lots of money? Some ruling elite...none of you can answer this question of how we decide on the rules for government to follow.
Who makes the rules? Don't tell me I'm evasive when you won't answer some very logical and pertinent questions.
The U.S. government will be MORE reasonable when the people RUN it. I'm not sure you believe that and it IS the basis of this countries founding.
Posted by: muirgeo | Jul 2, 2007 5:08:27 PM
Methinks,
Although China has a history of something like 10 trillion years, their society is definitely not monolithic. China has been in a constant state of change literally since the 1850s. Change that we in America can not comprehend. You (methinks) obviously have seen change having seen 2 worlds, but I'm not sure even Russian/Soviet change compares to what the Chinese have gone through (put themselves through).
Looking at my father-in-law's lifespan, there has been enormous change that would take chapters to discuss. From a breaking down republic and war with Japan, to the Communist control, to the Great Leap, to the Cultural Revolution, to the death of Mao, each incident was full of poverty, chaos, and total uncertainty.
Mao's death was literally a light - not at the end of a tunnel - but a lightpost down a long road out of the complete darkness that North Koreans can probably relate to. As a smart man, my father-in-law was "chosen" to be a student, and with my mother-in-law lived in a 7 square meter dwelling. And he was a lucky one.
Between 1976 and now, there has been a definite progress, but not until the last 5-8 years (coinciding with WTO?) has there been real improvements. I can't tell you how many Chinese say this exact line: "Each year I go back, it looks different." Progress is everywhere!
There is far more choices of food, recreation, clothing, technology, etc. then there was just 10 years ago. It has truly moved from a third world country to what I would call "nearly developed" country. The business class people look very much like you'd expect in most modern cities - driving cars, talking on cell phones, doing deals, etc. It is not limited to Hong Kong and Shanghai anymore. Growth is definitely here. Their stock market and real estate markets have taken off like crazy. (Bubble? Well, I'm sure you could address that better than me. :-) )
There are western medicines there. Ten years ago Chinese wouldn't have bought aspirin, or cough syrup. But they even have Viagra there now (no prescription necessary).
Not to sound racist, but Chinese people are much more mistrusting than westerners. They probably have good reason to be. And I don't think this has changed. And many, even my tech friends making $100K, still play the martyr card. A Chinese co-worker recently said she had no idea how "small Chinese hearts" were until she moved away. This will take time. Mao was very good at playing up their fears of the rich, outsiders, Christians, individualism, etc. I once commented that Chinese families are closer, and Chinese strangers are further. If you know what I mean.
Their culture is still very Chinese. They save money like crazy. Like to eat their own food. Mostly like to listen to their own music. Japan grabbed on to western culture, I don't see China doing that. They are more interested in exporting their culture and showing how great they are. The Beijing Olympics will be a "look how great we are" gala to the nth degree, and I will probably get sick of it quickly.
Yes, life is better, and not just for the elite. It is incredibly corrupt there still, but even the median income people seem to have a much better life now.
Sorry if I rambled. That was the "I've got 10 minutes to type" version.
Posted by: python | Jul 2, 2007 5:39:41 PM
The cheaper stuff for Americans to buy is negatively offset by their decrease in wages.
If it were true, you'd have a point. But there are various markets you can look at where it is demonstrably untrue. For example, when Macs were made mostly in Fremont, CA and Sacramento, CA, a low-end system cost about $3000, a high end system about $5000. They had 30% - 40% market share, and they still never approached the volume they are doing today. Crunch the numbers and you'll realize that in 1988, computers (domestically produced) were an absolute luxury. Today, you can buy a reasonable system at WalMart for under $500.
Televisions are another... I remember my folks buying two 26" Zeniths (American made) around 1980. The bill for that excursion was over $3K in 1980 dollars. $3K in 2007 dollars will buy you a darned nice 46" Sony set today. Compare HDTV sales this year with total TV sales in 1980. I think you'd be surprised how much wealthier we are today.
Posted by: Brad Hutchings | Jul 2, 2007 6:03:58 PM
Thanks, Python.
Fascinating. My step-mother is Chinese but she lives in an insulated world and isn't very expressive. All she says is "it's much better" every time she goes back.
Of course, China is a completely different and more complex animal than Russia/Soviet Union/back to Russia. I started to list all the differences just now and gave up because the list will be too long.
Some things are similar, pessimism and distrust are difficult to overcome. Especially distrust.
Thank you for taking the time to post your account. It's a fascinating country to watch and I appreciate your perspective.
Posted by: methinks | Jul 2, 2007 6:59:04 PM
python/methinks....did y'all listen to "Bruce Bueno de Mesquita on Democracies and Dictatorships" on EconTalk? I just listened to that today...
I'd be interested to know what you guys, who have an opinion/interest in China, thought about his comments on the relative un-freedom of China, as it made sense while he was saying it, though it didn't square with my general sense of where China's at right now (admittedly based on vague whispers here and there); I tended to believe more in line with what y'all were saying here, that it is essentially better for all, and would continue to get inexorably better for all...
...though I guess I could go to the econtalk page to look that up and see who commented in the thread there....right...gonna go do that...
Posted by: shawn | Jul 2, 2007 10:00:33 PM
I'd like to point out that, contary to Muirgeo's claim, American workers do not compete directly with Chinese workers. And, I'd like to reiterate that China is not our #1 trading partner. Hell, even the official account balance numbers are misleading. For example, the US gets charged with the full price of an iPhone imported, the full price of a pair of boots that Wal-Mart sells and imports, but most of the returns are to American-based companies. As Walter Williams, et al, have noted, American companies--and by extension, the American people--benefit greatly from trade with China.
Consider: If we were competing directly with China, they would have firms like Apple, IBM, Maytag (are they still around?), Xerox, whoever. But they don't. Not yet. We buy stuff from the Chinese that our opportunity costs are too high to make for ourselves...stuff that we buy for <$5-10 at Wally World or Target. The Chinese aren't taking our jobs away, on the contrary, we are providing jobs for them that wouldn't make any sense with the socialistic rabble here squalling for employment rights, minimum wage, and extended benefits.
And STILL, with all of that, China is better off. If I had the motivation, I would go look for how many *millions* of Chinese that just Wal-Mart is responsible for pulling up out of poverty a month. It is impressive. But that probably doesn't matter to isolationists, socialists, collectivists, communists, &c. Nothing matters to them but their own narcissistic plan for some idealized society based on thier retarded concepts of "unicorn-riding, butterfly-chasing, communal goodness." Whatever.
Posted by: skh.pcola | Jul 2, 2007 10:17:01 PM
We really can't complain about the government that represses the intellectual currency of its people and then accept the benefits of the same government that represses the value of its currency to the detriment of its people because that aspect of the government works to our advantage.
Economically speaking, there is no value to either speaking out for the repressed freedom of a few Chinese or not speaking out. It is just a waste of time and energy. Our only interest with the Chinese is their cheap labor and currency manipulation that keeps our imports of their products cheap. And, of course, that they do not go to war against us.
If you want to deal with ethics or morality, that is outside the traditional realms of trade or politics. A bargain is a bargain whether it is with the devil or a saint.
Posted by: Bruce Hall | Jul 2, 2007 10:26:32 PM
Our current world is a perfect example of the axiom, "A rising tide lifts all boats".
(For this discussion, when I say "World" I will be referencing those countries that participate in Free Trade agreements and strive to maintain/encourage international trade.)
The world economy is growing at a fairly rapid pace. It is fueled by growth in China, renewed growth in Europe, and a stable US economy. As it has become more and more integrated on an international level American workers have been competing with workers throughout the world, not just China. Money managers in Manhattan compete (and have for decades) with the folks in London. American corn growers compete with Mexicon corn growers. Silicon Valley both feeds off of and competes with software gurus of Bangalore and Mumbai. Uranium mining companies in the Midwest compete with the Uranium mines of Australia.
Americans and American companies competing on an international scale for jobs, contracts, employees and resources is not a new thing. But when China roared onto the international manufacturing it was the first time in history that there was a confluence of certain things:
1) China represents fully 1/5 of the total human population of the world. This provides both a more than adaquate supply of cheap labor, but also a large supply of inteligent folk ready to be trained for jobs as engineers and analysts.
2) The largest ecnomy on the globe (USA) had just begun a price war between the largest retailers in the country (Wal-Mart, Sears, K-Mart, Target). A source of cheap labor was not only beneficial, it was necessary to continue the price war.
3) China's entrance to the main stage was also the first time that a nation has been able to afford to depress it's currency, subsidize manufacturing that was solely for export, and also enjoy rapid benefits of the growth of communication and transportation technology.
But as the Rising Tide Axiom posits, one of the primary parts of China's growth HAD to change. Chinese wages have been increasing faster than anywhere else in the world. While at the same time it has grown increasingly more expensive for the chinese to subsidize American and European consumerism. This week China increased its VAT from 9% to 13%. Also it has ended a large number of the subsidies that are given to manufacturers in China. I work at a company that deals largely with chinese manufacturers, the result of these two things will most likely mean that we are returning the majority of our manufacturing to the US.
But also these changes, esp. increases in wages, have been driving the "outsourcing" moves not to China, but nations like Vietnam, Malaysia and Sri Lanka.
For years we (those that believe in the power of free markets to create both wealth and increase living standards) have been predicting this outcome. Wages are rising in these other nations now as well.
As the international markets become increasingly integrated, nations that particpate in it will see their wages fluctuate to match International Demand and Supply not only NATIONAL Demand and Supply.
What will we (Americans) be doing for jobs then? How much will we make? I HAVE NO IDEA. Do You?
I heard Dr. Roberts speak in Dallas a few years ago in regards to globalization and its effects on local workers. He had this to say...
"At the beginning of the 20th century nearly 60% of the American work force was involved in agriculture. Today it is only 2%. If you had predicted that 100 years ago, people would have automatically asked you what everyone would be doing instead of farming. At that point the conversation would go something like this...Well you see, we will have these things called computers and this other thing called the Internet..."
Posted by: Adam Malone | Jul 3, 2007 10:23:23 AM
Maybe we can't greatly affect China's policies, but surely we can do something about those in the West who seem to censor themselves. To take what may seem a trivial example, try finding "Tibet" on Google Earth, or zooming in anywhere round that area. I think Don is correct to point out that we in the West take freedom and free speech far too much for granted.
Posted by: Rolf Norfolk | Jul 3, 2007 12:06:45 PM
"Some ruling elite...none of you can answer this question of how we decide on the rules for government to follow."
-Muirgeo
We refer to them as the framers of teh US constitution which the current and past governments have run roughshod over again and again.
There, I answered your question.... care to raise another flimsy meaningless argument?
Posted by: Jon | Jul 3, 2007 12:57:12 PM
Jon,
I'm not sure that you answered Muirgeo's question. The United States as constituted today represents a mixed-economy. In a completely free market, how do you set the rules expecially given the rejection of government regulation by most liberatarians? Based upon my reading of Hayek's book ("The Road to Serfdom"), I'm getting the feeling that he would be considered too old-school for many of the posters in this forum.
Posted by: David P. Graf | Jul 4, 2007 1:36:47 PM
