Business Experience Required, seriously!

New legislation regarding the import of new businesses, specifically, insurance companies would require them to have at least 20 years of experience before being admitted with a legitimate charter.
Recently, has been a significant amount of discussion concerning the Chinese economic growth potentially running into the same bubble economy problems as its fellow Asian tiger, Japan. The 1990 fall in the Japanese market is commonly blamed on the government's funding of so-called zombie corporations paired with irresponsible, and often empty investment. China, having learned from history is not only demanding experience as a requirement, but is also attempting to keep investment aggressively in Chinese hands.
What I'm concerned about is how U.S. firms such as Wal-mart are so dependent upon China's economy and vice-versa, (an annual 18 billion dollars in revenue Guerin, Didier. Growth in China requires a leap of faith. Advertising Age 11/28/2005, Vol. 76 Issue 48, p29-29, 2/3p, 1 graph, 2c) that any problems that arise in China will inadvertently affect the American economy.
I am an advocate of market economies; however, by focusing on one particular corner of the world we are perhaps subjecting ourselves to a potentially damaging development economically.

China Controls the Panama Canal

The Panama Canal, which was "returned" to the Panamanians in 2000 as per Pres. Jimmy Carter's agreement with Panama in 1977, is now under control of a Chinese company called Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. Hutchison is based out of Hong Kong and has direct links with the CCP and the PLA.
In 1997 the company was given a 25- to 50-year contract to run the two major ports on either side of the canal. According to some congressmen in the 90's, China is using Panama as a base of operations in the Americas. Apparently they are smuggling people into the United States illegally, coming in from Panama through Mexico.
I have problems with this for a couple of reasons. First off, I think the deal made by Carter to give control of the canal to Panama was just stupid. I mean, we paid for the rights to the land, we built the canal, we use it more than anyone else. It only makes sense that we should be the ones who control it. And with China controlling the canal, they would be able to restrict the usage of it if a war ever broke out between us. Not to mention they can use this as leverage against other countries to get them to bow to their wishes.

http://www.conservativeusa.org/panama-washtimes.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050117-115550-1929r.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17269

COnflicting values

On February 17 a number of people in China's Jinlin province were hospitalized due to Carbon Monoxide (CO, clever huh?) poisoning. Authorities claim atmospheric pressures may have triggered the incident.
China's pollution problems are no news to anyone, the same explosion in industry that has steered the country into its 'intimidating' economic status has also lowered the living standards of many civilians, not to mention more often than not, endangering their health outright.
This recent mass-poisoning is a prime example of what I feel to be one of the most significant setbacks facing China at present. Similar to their communist cousins before them, China is obsessed with showing the world its good side. Shangai boasts the world's largest TV tower and world's fastest train, their economy takes no second thought in flexing its influence upon the world, and Chinese officials often take a sort of joy in the fact that they are now encroaching upon US investment.
Everyone marvels at China, students with dollar signs in their eyes are signing up to learn Chinese. I enrolled in a class to better understand their political system; however, despite all of these so-called advances, China is in the dark ages in some of the more remote regions, and most of even Hong Kong's water supply is risky to drink! Annually Chinafaces floods (often a result of their governments own ambition paired with faulty engineering), environmental conflict, disease (two years ago: "what bird flu?!"), and pollution-based health incidents.
This is NOT a standard for the future economic powerhouse and until the government can get off of the old soviet bandwagon of denial and meaningless endorsement of SYMBOLS of power, prestige, and dominance there should be at least some criticism by the international community in order to sway China into a way of thinking based upon the greater good.


http://english.cctv.com/english/20060217/101785.shtml

"Chinese Taipei"?

Last Friday I was watching the Olympic opening ceremony, and I noticed that Taiwan wasn't introduced as Taiwan, but rather "Chinese Taipei." They also weren't allowed to use their country flag. I really thought it was weird, so I looked it up and found on Wikipedia an article explaining this. Apparently, it's not just the Olympics that won't call Taiwan by her name. Due to pressure from the PRC, many organizations and also countries either don't officially recognize Taiwan or won't call it Taiwan, but instead use some other name that China deems acceptable. Even the United States doesn't officially recognize Taiwan.
I think this is terrible. Taiwan is a free, democratic country with 23 million people and deserves to be recognized as sovereign. I'm appalled that even the United States would bow to China's wishes on this.
Also, what is China's motivation for not allowing Taiwan to be recognized? The only motivation I can think of is that they want to take Taiwan back and want to make it seem to the world that Taiwan really is part of China so that they'll have justification for taking it over.

Wikipedia - Chinese Taipei

don't forget a great man

Chiang Kai-shek was one of the most important political leaders in 20th century Chinese history, sandwiched between Sun Yat-sen and. Early in the 20th century Chiang Kai-shek fought for Sun Yat-sen's United Revolutionary League and the Kuomintang party to overthrow China's imperial dynasty. The Republic of China was established in 1912, but by the end of the 1920s the Kuomintang split with the Communists. After the death of Sun Yat-sen, Chiang became the leader of the Kuomintang army and seized control of the government. Still engaged in a civil war with the Communists, Generalissimo Chiang also led the army against Japanese invaders in Manchuria (1937). During World War II Chiang had the support of the Allied powers and was the supreme commander of the China theater for the length of the war, the acknowledged leader of a war-torn and impoverished China. After World War II ended, the Kuomintang and the Communists re-ignited the civil war, and Chiang was eventually driven off the mainland to the island of Taiwan (1949), where the Kuomintang set up a government-in-exile. Until his death in 1975, Chiang ruled Taiwan under martial law and modernized the economy, receiving support from the West for his anti-communism. His international position waned after the 1971 United Nations decision to recognize the Communists as the official government of China.

china as a member of the world trade organization

As one of the newest members of the World Trade Organization (WTO),1 China is unique in a number of respects. First, it is by far the largest economic power among developing country members. By traditional measures, China fits well within the definition of a developing country—in most regions of the country, per capita GDP remains below $1000.2 Indeed, during its negotiations for accession to the WTO, China argued that it should be entitled to the special and differential treatment extended to developing countries in the WTO agreements.3 At the same time, China stands apart from other developing countries as a producer of, and a magnet for, foreign investment. According to recent WTO data, China was the seventh largest merchandise exporter in the world, with aggregate exports of $249 billion in 2000.4 In addition, China received an estimated $46.8 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2001, making it one of the world’s largest recipients of foreign investment—second only to the United States if FDI flows to Hong Kong are included.5 Thus, China is both a developing country and an economic powerhouse.
China is also unique in a second respect; it is the only major WTO member that is still Communist.6 In 1982, six years after the end of the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) adopted a new Constitution reflecting Deng Xiaoping’s ideas for modernization and market reform.7 Since that time, China’s reform effort has continued at an extraordinary pace, as the Party has increasingly staked its legitimacy on China’s ability to sustain high levels of economic growth. As a result of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, China has largely transformed its economy. However, it remains under the control of a Communist apparatus that struggles to maintain dominance even as it embraces modernization. Jiang Zemin’s “three represents” campaign, which emphasizes the CCP’s role in representing the interests of capitalists along with the interests of workers and peasants, is part of an ongoing effort by the Party to reform and revive itself.8 The CCP has opened its membership to entrepreneurs and may soon appoint several prominent businessmen to high positions within the Party.9 Currently, China is undergoing its first peaceful change of leadership in decades, as Jiang Zemin and other top CCP officials step down and cede control to a new generation of leaders.10 China is therefore at a turning point, both in terms of the transfer of power within the CCP and its new status as a WTO member.

out with communism

China will commemorate 50 years of Communist Party rule this year. However, communism is dead in the hearts and minds of its people. Like their former comrades in Russia and Eastern Europe, the Chinese people prefer market riches to Marxist dogma. Now even the Communist Party leaders are conceding that private enterprise is here to stay.
The diminishing role of state-owned enterprises (SOE) and the raising status of non-state enterprises, including private firms, are realities that the ruling elite can no longer ignore. State enterprises account for only 30% of industrial output, but their political pull has meant that they still capture the bulk of investment resources - bureaucrats directed 70% of state bank loans to SOE’s last year. With the change in the constitution, private firms hope to be able to compete on a more equal basis for scarce capital.
If the people's congress does approve the constitutional change and recognizes "multiple forms of ownership" in addition to state ownership, the Communist Party will be admitting what the common folk already know: The future of China lies with free markets and private property.
Nearly a decade after the Tiananmen Square uprising, President Jiang Zemin has made "stability" the No. 1 policy to ensure no deviation from the basic party line. But his increasingly harsh crackdown on dissidents is a sign of weakness, not of strength.
The truth is the Communist Party of China is weaker now than at any time since 1949. The economic liberalization that began in 1978 has given more power to the people, and, unintentionally, undercut the Party's power.
People have little faith in industrial enterprises or banks run by the state. They know that, regardless of official rhetoric to the contrary, government ownership means party control. But that authoritarian approach to economic organization has been a giant failure for all to see.
China cannot solve its economic problems alone. That is why it is essential for the West, especially the United States, to continue its policy of engagement and refine its policy of engagement.
The United States should help move China in the direction of greater economic and personal freedom by normalizing trade relations, integrating China into the global trading order, and promoting exchange on a broad front. Congress should not let the bilateral trade deficit with China interfere with that strategy.
Any movement away from freer trade and toward protectionism would only delay China's progress toward freedom and prosperity and harm the global economy. Trade sanctions should be used only in extreme cases and only when they have a high chance of success; too often they can delay real reform.
Likewise, China should be admitted to the World Trade Organization as soon as possible, provided China respect the principles of a liberal trading order, including the rule of law and the principle of non-discrimination.

Capitalism in China

Is China's economy growing too fast and if so, what does that mean to its people?

In a Washington Post article on January 26, writer, Peter S. Goodman states, "Over the past decade, China's output has more than doubled in size as the country's transistion toward capitalism has progressed, turning farmers into factory workers and linking the fortunes of its people to the appetites of shoppers in the United States, Europe and Japan."

What does this mean for the Chinese? Some analysts argue it will cause a rise in unemployment and a depletion of resources. Farmers are now turning to factory jobs. This has the potential of hurting the agricultural society.

These factories are also increasing tensions on trade with the United States. There have been a series of uneeded plants being built in the cities, and Chinese officials feel they could lead to falling profits due to the deflation. They also fear that companies will lose incentives to invest. People will then start losing their jobs and a rise in unemployment will hurt the economy even further. Japan has faced this problem for "much of the past 16 years."

With a strong desire to choose what to do with their lives (whether they actually choose or their parents choose for them), citizens are turning away from jobs the government may try to impose on them. They are finding what they (or their parents) like. Does this mean that some jobs will become too popular, and will other jobs fall short?

For example, China has too many people who want to be nurses. While the U.S. is facing a shortage on nurses, China is facing a plethura. They are now being urged to pursue the career, but plan on moving to The United States, Great Britain, or China. Nursing schools are teaching them English and Japanese to help them make the transistion. There simply is not enough room in China for all the nurses.

Under Communism, the people had little concept of personal property. Now with the rise of capitalism, people are realizing how much more they can have. "Local governments want to build science parks and subways and people want to build houses. And now [Chinese authorities] are actually letting stuff get built again." But is it too much? There may not be enough room.

Is this idea of personal property actually going to hurt their economy? People want to build houses, but they also want to work in the city. Unfortunately, there may not be enough room in the city for both houses and new factories. This may build an elitist attitude for those who are actually able to pursue the dream.

Obviously this economic growth and shift is making an impact on the Chinese people, but what about foreign countries? What does this mean to the United States for example? "China's economy grew by 9.9 percent last year." Its economy has now passed Great Britain, France, and Italy. China's economy is now the fourth-largest.

This shift from Communism to Capitalism may be what we (and others) have wanted for years, but we may not like it when their economy passes ours.