Changing China Set to Shake World Economy, Again

[SinglePot]

During the film's launch in China, the Hollywood blockbuster Avatar was reportedly going to be pulled from nearly 1,600 2-D screens across China, to benefit the wide release of this film.[10] Instead, Avatar showings continued in the fewer, but more popular 900 3-D screens throughout China, which generated over 64% of the film's total ticket sales in China.[10][11] The Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily speculates that the Chinese authorities were worried Avatar had seized the market share from domestic films and noted that many of the vacant cinema slots will be replaced by Confucius,[12] and the film would be "drawing unwanted attention to the sensitive issue" concerning forced evictions of Chinese homes.[11] However, China's State Administration of Radio, Film and Television responded by stating it was a "commercial decision", and because the "box office performance of the 2D version has not been great."[13] However, due to low attendance for Confucius, and high demand for Avatar, the Chinese government reversed their decision, and allowed Avatar to remain on some 2-D screens in China. This choice appeared to be at least partly based on the financial performance of the two films, with Avatar grossing nearly 2.5 times more money per day.[14]

Source: Wiki

[SinglePot]

Box office :

Avatar: $2,782,275,172.

Confucius: $18.6 million.

Looks like Avatar made some serious money ( over 2 billion dollars!) for the US economy.

Source: Wiki

[SinglePot]

American Dream my son, American Dream.

Chinese Dream a poor copy.

Btw: Diabetes epidemic will be very costly for the China economy.

[boomerangutang]

The last thing Beijing heavies want is regular people thinking of rising up to demonstrate for fair rights; land dispute fairness, lessening of privileges for VIPs, popular voting procedures for leaders, ....and other important issues.

[FDog]

Meanwhile, back on topic, the Chinese economy still kicks on while most other countries fail.

[SinglePot]

Meanwhile, back on topic, the Chinese economy still kicks on while most other countries fail.

Party pooper!

BtW. Still waiting to hear from our resident Chinese expert what the new name for the Communist Party is going to be.

[Publicus]

Prez Obama ordered all CCP Confucius Institutes' teaching personnel in the United States to have to return to the CCP-PRC to get visa renewals. No more going to the US Embassy in Canada or in Mexico, whichever is more convenient geographically - or even to Venezuela or to or a US Embassy in a Caribbean country etc.

That is interesting, In the US the President does personally decide how visa issues should be handled?

Do you have any link or source that explains this issue further?

Ask and ye shall receive.

If you think or believe the president of the United States doesn't know anything about this, you'd have to think again about that.

State Dpt. Targets 'Confucius Institute' Teachers

Dozens of Chinese teachers at Confucius Institutes in the United States could be forced to leave by June 30 due to a State Department directive, the head of the institute’s Beijing headquarters said on Thursday.

The directive, issued May 17, was sent to universities that sponsor the nonprofit institutes that promote Chinese language and culture overseas.

What also caught universities by surprise is the fact that the directive says Confucius Institutes should obtain U.S. accreditation in order to continue to accept foreign scholars and professors as teachers.

"The department is reviewing the academic viability of the Confucius Institutes. Based on the department's preliminary review, it is not evident that those institutes are US-accredited," the directive states.

http://newamericamedia.org/2012/05/chinese-teachers-may-be-forced-to-leave-after-state-department-directive.php

looks like you got something wrong- thanks member folium i learned the following

" According to China Daily USA, on May 20, the head of Confucius Institute headquarters in China wrote to her U.S. university partners that she hoped that the project would not be affected or halted by the directive. Lerner met with Chinese officials for a “candid” talk, and within 24 hours of this consultation, a revised policy directive was sent out on May 25.

As a result, no Chinese teacher will be forced to leave the country, and no accreditation is required for the institutes. China Daily USA even gloated that the State Department allowed Chinese officials a sneak peek of the revised document before it came out."

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/13/the-state-departments-confusion-over-confucius-institutes/

Is that true?looks like o no Chinese teacher ever left and had really go back to China to re apply for a visa. totally different from your story.

Your article has also nothing that it was Obama himself who had ordered that the Confucius Institute staff must left the country like you said before.

I would be interested in the legal aspect of it. Does in the USA the president really have the power to make such decisions or isn't that much more in the hand of other institutions and visa regulation defined by existing laws?

Relax.

I refer you to my post of today @ 06:05.

The post points out the "beef" between Washington and Beijing concerning the Confucius Institutes in the US. Beijing also is in hot water with governments in Canada, Europe, Australia, which I did not include in the post, choosing rather to focus on the United States and the CCP. The other Western universities and governments have the same beef and are also currently in discussions with the CCP in Beijing.

The supporting news article in the post identifies the problem, the beef, which is Beijing's refusal to recognize academic freedom at the Confucius Institutes. However, the article also discusses major adjustments the CCP in Beijing have made to their teachings at the Institutes in the US, such as ceasing to teach Taiwan is a province of the CCP-PRC, ceasing to prohibit discussion of Tibet, Xinjiang etc etc. (Taiwan is not a province of the CCP-PRC: Taiwan's formal name is the Republic of China.)

The bottom line is that the CCP in Beijing, as of just this week, recognizes academic freedom at the Confucius Institutes at all host universities in the United States.

Clearly, someone at the DepState didn't get the word in these fast moving developments, which is hardly unprecedented. (I also think Prez Obama's been a bit busy lately.) The State Department main building and grounds on the east bank of the Potomac long have been called Foggy Bottom, for specific reasons over time. The fog literally rolls in nights but figuratively is present during the daytime too - the Metro (subway) stop there is named Foggy Bottom, not State Department. (It was my weekday stop for better than a year, twice daily.)

So now the focus shifts to US (and other Western universities) setting up campuses in the CCP-PRC, where issues of academic freedom had been flaring up, but seem lately to have been resolved or mostly resolved, at least on the campuses themselves. Western universities setting up shop in the CCP-PRC, hosted by PRChinese universities, can now exercise academic freedom in their facilities on campus.

However, open discussion ends anytime you pass through the campus gate and onto the city streets. Censorship off campus is currently the bone of contention, but I'd be pretty sure the CCP isn't going to budge on that one. Not in the CCP-PRC itself. You're in the CCP-PRC, you're censored.

I'm sure that, as it was, Western universities now operating on PRChinese college campuses in the PRC had to pull teeth at Zongnanhai to get academic freedom in their own university environs and in their own classes taught by their own professors.

[butterlimbo]

Relax with what?

your interesting sounding story about

"Prez Obama ordered all CCP Confucius Institutes' teaching personnel in the United States to have to return to the CCP-PRC to get visa renewals. No more going to the US Embassy in Canada or in Mexico, whichever is more convenient geographically - or even to Venezuela or to or a US Embassy in a Caribbean country etc. ..."

Didn't survived the fact check.

No Chinese teacher was forced to leave. And all you other conclusions and arguments are tide to that untrue story and consequently irrelevant.

[LawrenceChee]

Meanwhile, back on topic, the Chinese economy still kicks on while most other countries fail.

Party pooper!

BtW. Still waiting to hear from our resident Chinese expert what the new name for the Communist Party is going to be.

CCP.

[LawrenceChee]

Box office :

Avatar: $2,782,275,172.

Confucius: $18.6 million.

Looks like Avatar made some serious money ( over 2 billion dollars!) for the US economy.

Source: Wiki

Made enough money for Mr Wang to buy up AMC cinema and build a new giant film studio in Qingdao that will produce more hits for the local market.

Not sure why this incident will be pulled into the forum and called worrisome action except its china bashing season.

I don't believe there is another market that makes it easier for the competitors...did you catch Ip Man movie in LA or Miami lately ? It was a great movie ...

[Scott]

I would strongly suggest that posters be civil to one another. Aggressive posting is going to result in warnings, along with trolling.

[boomerangutang]

Sorry, if it sounds like 'China bashing.' Yet much of what happens in China, affects others worldwide, to various degrees. If China has one or a series of economic bubble bursts, many of us feel the bangs. If China releases large amounts of CO2, mainly from its coal burning plants, the rest of the world coughs. Similarly, grave problems ensue if one or more of its dozens of nuke plants suffer breaches. If war breaks out in the S.China sea, harm spreads ...you get the picture. One thing 'China bashers' like me want to see is continued and additional responsibility (and safeguards) from a country with such a large global footprint.

[folium]

Sorry, if it sounds like 'China bashing.' Yet much of what happens in China, affects others worldwide, to various degrees. If China has one or a series of economic bubble bursts, many of us feel the bangs. If China releases large amounts of CO2, mainly from its coal burning plants, the rest of the world coughs. Similarly, grave problems ensue if one or more of its dozens of nuke plants suffer breaches. If war breaks out in the S.China sea, harm spreads ...you get the picture. One thing 'China bashers' like me want to see is continued and additional responsibility (and safeguards) from a country with such a large global footprint.

And that is the very nature of globalization. Since China re-entered the world economy the degree of interdependence, built on trade and the flow of capital and technology primarily, has grown exponentially.

While the people of China as a whole have seen dramatic improvements in their socio-economic conditions, this has been provided at the expense of civil liberties. The scale of the problems/issues today facing the CCP underlines the importance of resolving them if the CCP is to keep its side of the bargain in terms of delivering continued socio-economic improvements.

Like it or not the CCP is the legal and thus legitimate/valid government of China, unlike Taiwan which exists in a tortuous legal limbo.

The current interdependence of the global economy is such that cheerleading a collapse of the PRC is little more than an exercise in cutting off nose to spite face. If however you hold a belief that the collapse of the PRC would have little impact on the rest of the world, then why worry about what is happening in China?

Economic advances within a nation have always in the end led to political change as an enriched and increasingly aware population seeks more control over their own destiny. See S.Korea for more details, even though it is still a work in progress.

I am no fan of authoritarian governments and the essential essence of Chinese entrepreneurship, that can be seen throughout the Chinese diaspora and to a constrained level within the PRC, will ultimately spell doom for the present PRC government unless it shifts further away from the statist mindset that currently dominates policy as seen in the PRC today. China is at a fascinating crossroads moment today, but it would be in no one's interest to see a total collapse and descent into civil conflict.

[SinglePot]

Any views on hydroelectric power from neighbouring countries feeding China's demand Boomer?

Green costs money.

Straight off the bottom line.

Edited October 18, 2013 by SinglePot

[folium]

Any views on hydroelectric power from neighbouring countries feeding China's demand Boomer?

Green costs money.

Straight off the bottom line.

Try looking up renewable energy in China, as it is likely that domestic hydro plus nuclear and increasingly shale, will be the key areas for diversification away from coal and imported oil.

[SinglePot]

Any views on hydroelectric power from neighbouring countries feeding China's demand Boomer?

Green costs money.

Straight off the bottom line.

Try looking up renewable energy in China, as it is likely that domestic hydro plus nuclear and increasingly shale, will be the key areas for diversification away from coal and imported oil.

Domestic hydro has destroyed major China rivers.

That is part of my point.

[SinglePot]

Wealth creation, equitable distribution, concern for planet.

Rate your country.

Good evening.

[LawrenceChee]

Wealth creation, equitable distribution, concern for planet.

Rate your country.

Good evening.

Singapore gets top marks for wealth creation, 2/10 for equitable distribution and recycling efforts 4/10.

[Publicus]

Sorry, if it sounds like 'China bashing.' Yet much of what happens in China, affects others worldwide, to various degrees. If China has one or a series of economic bubble bursts, many of us feel the bangs. If China releases large amounts of CO2, mainly from its coal burning plants, the rest of the world coughs. Similarly, grave problems ensue if one or more of its dozens of nuke plants suffer breaches. If war breaks out in the S.China sea, harm spreads ...you get the picture. One thing 'China bashers' like me want to see is continued and additional responsibility (and safeguards) from a country with such a large global footprint.

And that is the very nature of globalization. Since China re-entered the world economy the degree of interdependence, built on trade and the flow of capital and technology primarily, has grown exponentially.

While the people of China as a whole have seen dramatic improvements in their socio-economic conditions, this has been provided at the expense of civil liberties. The scale of the problems/issues today facing the CCP underlines the importance of resolving them if the CCP is to keep its side of the bargain in terms of delivering continued socio-economic improvements.

Like it or not the CCP is the legal and thus legitimate/valid government of China, unlike Taiwan which exists in a tortuous legal limbo.

The current interdependence of the global economy is such that cheerleading a collapse of the PRC is little more than an exercise in cutting off nose to spite face. If however you hold a belief that the collapse of the PRC would have little impact on the rest of the world, then why worry about what is happening in China?

Economic advances within a nation have always in the end led to political change as an enriched and increasingly aware population seeks more control over their own destiny. See S.Korea for more details, even though it is still a work in progress.

I am no fan of authoritarian governments and the essential essence of Chinese entrepreneurship, that can be seen throughout the Chinese diaspora and to a constrained level within the PRC, will ultimately spell doom for the present PRC government unless it shifts further away from the statist mindset that currently dominates policy as seen in the PRC today. China is at a fascinating crossroads moment today, but it would be in no one's interest to see a total collapse and descent into civil conflict.

The modernism philosophy that market economics necessarily leads to democratic change is viable, yet it remains somewhat confounded or limited by numerous instances, Russia being one, where market reforms have been mangled into oligarchy and effective one party rule (if not literal).

Concerning the CCP-PRC, it confronts modernization theory with the stark reality that the CCP spends more on internal security forces than on its military, and that the CCP is absolutely determined not to repeat what it considers Gorbachev's fatal error of Glasnost, i.e., political liberalization.

And yes, the CCP anyway allows only limited and controlled market economic forces to operate. Consequently, the critical mass required to cause a transformation of the form of government is absent.

Repeatedly pointing out the very recently realized global consensus, which many have not got wind of, that the economy and financial system of the CCP-PRC is verging on collapse is not cheerleading because many remain oblivious to it, and because others vested in being Chinese deny it (which is understandable).

Any views on hydroelectric power from neighbouring countries feeding China's demand Boomer?

Green costs money.

Straight off the bottom line.

Try looking up renewable energy in China, as it is likely that domestic hydro plus nuclear and increasingly shale, will be the key areas for diversification away from coal and imported oil.

Beijing is damming the sources of rivers in the CCP-PRC, to include in occupied Tibet, which flow into the Indo-China peninsula where the mainland Asean countries are, and also into India. This is threatening fresh water supplies to the region, is interrupting agriculture, commerce and disrupting the natural environment and habitat.

Beijing knows this and doesn't give a rat's arse. In fact, Beijing views its increasing the scarcity of fresh water resources and its many attendant affects of this damming as being of great geopolitical and geoeconomic advantage to it in a straight up win-lose equation relative to itself and the populations and nations of the peninsula to include India.

That's not being very green.

[NeverSure]

And that is the very nature of globalization. Since China re-entered the world economy the degree of interdependence, built on trade and the flow of capital and technology primarily, has grown exponentially.

While the people of China as a whole have seen dramatic improvements in their socio-economic conditions, this has been provided at the expense of civil liberties. The scale of the problems/issues today facing the CCP underlines the importance of resolving them if the CCP is to keep its side of the bargain in terms of delivering continued socio-economic improvements.

Like it or not the CCP is the legal and thus legitimate/valid government of China, unlike Taiwan which exists in a tortuous legal limbo.

The current interdependence of the global economy is such that cheerleading a collapse of the PRC is little more than an exercise in cutting off nose to spite face. If however you hold a belief that the collapse of the PRC would have little impact on the rest of the world, then why worry about what is happening in China?

Economic advances within a nation have always in the end led to political change as an enriched and increasingly aware population seeks more control over their own destiny. See S.Korea for more details, even though it is still a work in progress.

I am no fan of authoritarian governments and the essential essence of Chinese entrepreneurship, that can be seen throughout the Chinese diaspora and to a constrained level within the PRC, will ultimately spell doom for the present PRC government unless it shifts further away from the statist mindset that currently dominates policy as seen in the PRC today. China is at a fascinating crossroads moment today, but it would be in no one's interest to see a total collapse and descent into civil conflict.

The modernism philosophy that market economics necessarily leads to democratic change is viable, yet it remains somewhat confounded or limited by numerous instances, Russia being one, where market reforms have been mangled into oligarchy and effective one party rule (if not literal).

Concerning the CCP-PRC, it confronts modernization theory with the stark reality that the CCP spends more on internal security forces than on its military, and that the CCP is absolutely determined not to repeat what it considers Gorbachev's fatal error of Glasnost, i.e., political liberalization.

And yes, the CCP anyway allows only limited and controlled market economic forces to operate. Consequently, the critical mass required to cause a transformation of the form of government is absent.

Repeatedly pointing out the very recently realized global consensus, which many have not got wind of, that the economy and financial system of the CCP-PRC is verging on collapse is not cheerleading because many remain oblivious to it, and because others vested in being Chinese deny it (which is understandable).

Any views on hydroelectric power from neighbouring countries feeding China's demand Boomer?

Green costs money.

Straight off the bottom line.

Try looking up renewable energy in China, as it is likely that domestic hydro plus nuclear and increasingly shale, will be the key areas for diversification away from coal and imported oil.

Beijing is damming the sources of rivers in the CCP-PRC, to include in occupied Tibet, which flow into the Indo-China peninsula where the mainland Asean countries are, and also into India. This is threatening fresh water supplies to the region, is interrupting agriculture, commerce and disrupting the natural environment and habitat.

Beijing knows this and doesn't give a rat's arse. In fact, Beijing views its increasing the scarcity of fresh water resources and its many attendant affects of this damming as being of great geopolitical and geoeconomic advantage to it in a straight up win-lose equation relative to itself and the populations and nations of the peninsula to include India.

That's not being very green.

Good post. The USSR collapsed with a whimper when Russia was the biggest threat to its region, and even in a "Cold War" with the US. It was the ultimate bully of the countries around it.

Economically it was different from China, but in other ways it was similar.

Of course at the bottom of it all, what brought it down was the joke called communism and its inability to feed its people. It simply had to let go because it didn't have the means to hold on.

If one of the cards in China's house collapses they will all collapse, and China may collapse with a whimper. I say may because I don't know. But I'll bet the leaders already have their jets ready and their money offshore and an escape route planned which if true might leave a bloodless coup. It might just leave the people standing around wondering what happened.

Just a thought, and not worth much...

[Credo]

Whatever happens in China happens on a grand scale. I doubt there would ever be only a whimper.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Credo

[boomerangutang]

When a country controls the flow of one or more major rivers which flow from it to other countries, it has leverage. N.Korea has a dam on a river which flows through Soeul. China has flow-control on part of the Salween and most of the Mekong which flows to Thailand. China has already built 3 of the 8 large dams, located right before the Mekong leaves its territory. It could have added dams planned there. China is also NOT a signatory to the Mekong River Commission, although it exerts the lion's share of influence on it and the 5 countries downstream. Lots of leverage. China could say, "Oh, you don't want to go along with what we want (in the S.China Sea or whatever), well, how would you like a large portion of your country flooded? (...or deprived of water, as the case might be)?"

[SinglePot]

Urbanisation and the repopulation of over 250 million rural Chinese since 2000 is equivalent to building 25 cities the size of New York.

Demand for electricity for residential purposes is voracious, never mind the manufacturing and infrastructure.

China is a big scale project. Good luck to them. But they need exceptionally gifted leadership and an equitable relationship with their neighbours and the planet.

USSR is a classic example of environmental destruction for the sake of modernisation and economic growth.

[NeverSure]

Wealth creation, equitable distribution, concern for planet.

Rate your country.

Good evening.

Hmmm. Do you mean equitable distribution as in communism or socialism, or do you mean equal opportunity?

I can tell you that in the US there is equal opportunity, but it now takes education to succeed. That education might be on the job training, or college or trade school, but it takes personal drive and desire to get your piece of the pie. Those who lack that drive wind up mediocre.

Now, I'm not talking about those who lack ability in some way. We take care of those.

But some of the richest people in America came from nowhere with an idea and a lot of inner drive. Some were just college kids when they started their businesses such as Microsoft's Gates, and Google's founders. Both of those companies have created thousands of good jobs with good benefits and in all including employees have paid a lot of taxes to the governments.

If we embrace the idea that we should take away from those who earn, and give it to those who don't earn, we have a system that will encourage no one to earn.

There is no magic bullet to make everyone equal.

[SinglePot]

Wealth creation, equitable distribution, concern for planet.

Rate your country.

Good evening.

Hmmm. Do you mean equitable distribution as in communism or socialism, or do you mean equal opportunity?

I can tell you that in the US there is equal opportunity, but it now takes education to succeed. That education might be on the job training, or college or trade school, but it takes personal drive and desire to get your piece of the pie. Those who lack that drive wind up mediocre.

Now, I'm not talking about those who lack ability in some way. We take care of those.

But some of the richest people in America came from nowhere with an idea and a lot of inner drive. Some were just college kids when they started their businesses such as Microsoft's Gates, and Google's founders. Both of those companies have created thousands of good jobs with good benefits and in all including employees have paid a lot of taxes to the governments.

If we embrace the idea that we should take away from those who earn, and give it to those who don't earn, we have a system that will encourage no one to earn.

There is no magic bullet to make everyone equal.

Totally agree NeverSure.

Best offering I can make is I'm more in tune with the American Dream than the Chinese Dream.

But I'm English so maybe a point of little importance.....

Good luck in the US of A. I have long standing family there. Good people.

[Publicus]

The graphic presented below is both revealing and ominous.

It connects to the Gini Coefficient that measures the wealth gap in a given country. In the CCP-PRC the Gini Coefficient is 0.6, which indicates an extremely high disparity of income distribution.

In fact, UN data show that a 0.4 measurement of the Gini Coefficient is the level at which the disparity produces social unrest in a country.

So in the CCP-PRC, the disparity has gone well beyond the UN's well researched findings.

I begin to see why the CCP spends more on internal security forces than it does on its armed forces.

China's rich get richer

Click on graphic

In the September 2013 quarter, China's gross domestic product grew a robust 7.8 per cent year-on-year.

But an unexpected fall in exports in September, easing growth in factory output and retail sales, and high inflation, have added to the economic gloom.

Amid all this, however, the richest 400 in that country have become wealthier by $150 billion this year, according to Forbes.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/international/china-s-rich-get-richer-113101900718_1.html

Edited October 19, 2013 by Publicus

[folium]

The graphic presented below is both revealing and ominous.

It connects to the Gini Coefficient that measures the wealth gap in a given country. In the CCP-PRC the Gini Coefficient is 0.6, which indicates an extremely high disparity of income distribution.

In fact, UN data show that a 0.4 measurement of the Gini Coefficient is the level at which the disparity produces social unrest in a country.

So in the CCP-PRC, the disparity has gone well beyond the UN's well researched findings.

Care to give some evidential support to your claim that the GINI coefficient for China is 6.0?

SWUFE is your friend.

Duelling data notwithstanding, the key question is how the government deals with inequality whether the level is at 4.7 or 6.0....

From someone who really knows about China, this is worth a read:

http://blog.oup.com/2013/10/five-reasons-why-china-has-the-most-interesting-economy-in-the-world/

[SinglePot]

In the last few years government has increasingly recognised that economic growth cannot be its only objective, and that policies to create a harmonious society deserve more attention. - See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2013/10/five-reasons-why-china-has-the-most-interesting-economy-in-the-world/#sthash.c6dTR8sk.dpuf

Yes. And.

What are they doing about it?

[folium]

In the last few years government has increasingly recognised that economic growth cannot be its only objective, and that policies to create a harmonious society deserve more attention. - See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2013/10/five-reasons-why-china-has-the-most-interesting-economy-in-the-world/#sthash.c6dTR8sk.dpuf

Yes. And.

What are they doing about it?

Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. What do you think they are doing about it?

Options are:

Repression

Do nothing

Fake reform

Do enough to head off social unrest

Full scale political reform

Foreign distraction adventure

etc, etc

Bottom line almost every politician wants to cling on to power, with legacy as a secondary objective. So motivation and thus responses tend to revolve around these two priorities.

China is at a vital crossroads managing a rebalancing of its economy while seeking to avoid social unrest. It is in everyone's interest that this hideously complicated manoeuvre is pulled off without major drama.

Political reform tends to follow economic reform but if the transition is too messy or involves a political collapse, this desired outcome can be material impacted and delayed, see Russia for more details.

Edited October 20, 2013 by folium

[SinglePot]

Thank you.

I would recommend community team sports and extensive charitable pursuits to bring people together. The tai chi performed by groups of seniors in open spaces in Beijing are quite pleasing. The young people are usually too busy I think.