Is that the propaganda the Chinese govements feeds it's people to explain their actions? China has been limiting its people's access to information for many, many years. Long before the current economic crisis. In what way does limiting access to information "localize its economy"? It's censorship, pure and simple. And I'm not saying censorship doesn't exist in other countries. Even in the US there are certain things you can't say on broadcast TV (but there are many other legal avenues where you can access content that can't be broadcast). China and a few other countries go far beyond that in controlling what their citizens can and cannot access.
Go ahead and say it's for the moral good of the citizens and we can debate that. Just don't pretend it has anything to do with protecting their economy.
The difference is, China is slowly being pushed toward openness, whereas the US is sinking into oblivion.
All of the china bashers are wrong. I think that conficionism, which is a chinese philosophy somewhat lends itself to the system of government they have now. Not everyone has to have democracy. When and if the time comes when chinese people feel that they want a new form of government they will change it themselves just like the people in the Soviet Union did. It will be quick and relaltively non violent. For now I get the feeling that most chinese are happy with the communist party and economic growth it promises.
Oh and as far as blocking iTunes, or twitter, that is going a bit overboard I think.
The impression I got was that the Chinese are largely satisfied with what is currently offered to them in terms of opportunity, and few of them care about freedom of expression with regard to politics. I just haven't seen evidence of it firsthand.
My question is whether Americans' embrace of an absolute free-market ideology is becoming powerful enough to threaten liberty: if China succeeds economically while being repressive, some Americans may actually think that "proves" there's no money in freedom and America should be like China: virtually enslave the masses and propagandize them to believe their lives' ambition should be to see the state prosper, not themselves personally.
Already in America the slavery is no less absolute, nor the propaganda any less pervasive than it is in China.
My question is whether Americans' embrace of an absolute free-market ideology is becoming powerful enough to threaten liberty: if China succeeds economically while being repressive, some Americans may actually think that "proves" there's no money in freedom and America should be like China: virtually enslave the masses and propagandize them to believe their lives' ambition should be to see the state prosper, not themselves personally.
I'm confused by what you are saying, when has America ever embraced an absolute free market?
...such a thing should be clearly seen as a duty of the State...
I find it interesting that you don't seem to understand one of the basic tenants of what the USA calls democracy (which is a misnomer), - that the people are the govt and deserve representation. China's record with govt. says that this is not the way they do business. Politics & military seem intermixed in China. The only "duty" the State has (in theory) in the USA is what the people set as a standard & I for one do not think universal health care is one of them.
as a member of WTO china has to act...! if they fail to do so trade sanction can, and in this case will be imposed...
the article explains this pretty good... please READ the full article...
you are right... if china is in wto he has to follow wto rules regardless its communist nature or not. if wto rules requires him to open its market for foreign media products, then he should have to.
you are right... if china is in wto he has to follow wto rules regardless its communist nature or not. if wto rules requires him to open its market for foreign media products, then he should have to.
And, "WTO Dispute Settlement and U.S. Law. Adoption of panel and appellate reports finding that a U.S. measure violates a WTO agreement does not give the reports direct legal effect in this country. Thus, federal law would not be affected until Congress or the Executive Branch, as the case may be, changed the law or administrative measure at issue."
And, "WTO Dispute Settlement and U.S. Law. Adoption of panel and appellate reports finding that a U.S. measure violates a WTO agreement does not give the reports direct legal effect in this country. Thus, federal law would not be affected until Congress or the Executive Branch, as the case may be, changed the law or administrative measure at issue."
rules or laws are nothing if there is no leverage. for a desperate guy, any damages he incurred to other can only be repaid by jailing him, if he can not provide any monetary remedy to the victim. but if he is rich instead, it would be a different thing.
the same token for wto rules. if china does not have current status as newly rich, who would ever complain its commerce practice? china has to think twice if US or other western countries apply retaliation measure if china is not complying.
Already in America the slavery is no less absolute, nor the propaganda any less pervasive than it is in China.
You believe what you choose to believe, as does everyone else.
I spent a little time (about a month or so) on my ride in to work listening to AM radio. They had a democratic talk show on. On the ride home, I listened to the same channel, with Rush Limbaugh on in the afternoon. The propaganda machine was in full effect, and you could side with either one if you listened to their arguments about the same topics.
The fact is, though, they were spewing one-sided beliefs to drive their own economies; that is to generate revenue and a steady listening audience. Much like Howard Stern. I'm sure there are days that man goes home wondering what the hell is wrong with some people. But those same wackos generate a serious business model.
My point is, do your own research and draw your own conclusions. Don't just rely on what people tell you.
I also wonder, do the Chinese people enjoy the same luxuries? Are they able to openly debate certain issues as we are here in the States? Maybe it seems they don't want to, but how would they know they wanted to if they were never taught to try?
The North Koreans have limited the revolt in their country by breeding it out. People there have been trained over generations to fear the State, and to also worship their Supreme Leader. Does this system lead to a better life for their people than, say the government of Norway?
The debates on these issues are without limit, and no one has the correct answer for sure. I, for one, am accustomed to speaking my mind (for better or worse) and I wouldn't like that to change. Maybe the Chinese people are used to having certain decisions taken care of for them, and they are happier for it. If not, things will change, just as they did here. All in time, I suppose.
As for the WTO, let's hope it's not as useless as the UN.
The impression I got was that the Chinese are largely satisfied with what is currently offered to them in terms of opportunity, and few of them care about freedom of expression with regard to politics. I just haven't seen evidence of it firsthand.
freedom of expression historically was rich in chinese society, but it has its own limit. china has its own unique civil administration system which is differently from the west. for 2000 years, per my guess, chinese realized that just expressing freely does not work. so they became very practical. anytime when they behaved rigidly, they failed miserably. they became deluded so much on communism dogma that they would think melting their wok would put the iron production to the top of the world in 1960s.
to a christian tradition country such as US, believing in dogma, such as freedom of expression, is the fundamental base for its society, even though every one knows there is no guarantee such freedom in every possible situation.
the difference between a chinese society and a western society can be analogous to the relationship between a play, its actors, and its audience. in chinese society(play), there is no clear line between actor and its audience, so that if you want to know it, you have to live through it; in a western society(play), actor is actor while audience is audience, so that if you want to know, you just need to observe.
current form of democracy is not the end of society or our world. there must be some better form of society ahead of us. otherwise, it is pretty pessimistic to human race. the dynamic of a play and its actor and its audience is changing constantly. maybe to a human, the time for such change looks like an eternity, but from history perspective, the change is just an instant. in 10-11th century china, its civil servant system was so advanced that even some current day democratic countries would not be able to match up. but it was brutally destroyed by mongols, not because chinese can not fight, but because they thought success can only be measured in term of moral supremacy not physical strength.
all i am trying to say is that we need a balanced view... politically, economically, socially, and morally.
rules or laws are nothing if there is no leverage. for a desperate guy, any damages he incurred to other can only be repaid by jailing him, if he can not provide any monetary remedy to the victim. but if he is rich instead, it would be a different thing.
the same token for wto rules. if china does not have current status as newly rich, who would ever complain its commerce practice? china has to think twice if US or other western countries apply retaliation measure if china is not complying.
We are talking about media imports.
Every country controls their media. In the US for example, foreigners cannot own tv or radio stations. Every communication device must pass FCC regulations and acts of Congress.
Ever wonder why it took so long to get HD TV? Ask your congressman.
China is not the only country to ban books, literature, movies, music, etc., in one respect or another. And that goes for the US even today.
Comments
Is that the propaganda the Chinese govements feeds it's people to explain their actions? China has been limiting its people's access to information for many, many years. Long before the current economic crisis. In what way does limiting access to information "localize its economy"? It's censorship, pure and simple. And I'm not saying censorship doesn't exist in other countries. Even in the US there are certain things you can't say on broadcast TV (but there are many other legal avenues where you can access content that can't be broadcast). China and a few other countries go far beyond that in controlling what their citizens can and cannot access.
Go ahead and say it's for the moral good of the citizens and we can debate that. Just don't pretend it has anything to do with protecting their economy.
The difference is, China is slowly being pushed toward openness, whereas the US is sinking into oblivion.
All of the china bashers are wrong. I think that conficionism, which is a chinese philosophy somewhat lends itself to the system of government they have now. Not everyone has to have democracy. When and if the time comes when chinese people feel that they want a new form of government they will change it themselves just like the people in the Soviet Union did. It will be quick and relaltively non violent. For now I get the feeling that most chinese are happy with the communist party and economic growth it promises.
Oh and as far as blocking iTunes, or twitter, that is going a bit overboard I think.
The impression I got was that the Chinese are largely satisfied with what is currently offered to them in terms of opportunity, and few of them care about freedom of expression with regard to politics. I just haven't seen evidence of it firsthand.
My question is whether Americans' embrace of an absolute free-market ideology is becoming powerful enough to threaten liberty: if China succeeds economically while being repressive, some Americans may actually think that "proves" there's no money in freedom and America should be like China: virtually enslave the masses and propagandize them to believe their lives' ambition should be to see the state prosper, not themselves personally.
Already in America the slavery is no less absolute, nor the propaganda any less pervasive than it is in China.
My question is whether Americans' embrace of an absolute free-market ideology is becoming powerful enough to threaten liberty: if China succeeds economically while being repressive, some Americans may actually think that "proves" there's no money in freedom and America should be like China: virtually enslave the masses and propagandize them to believe their lives' ambition should be to see the state prosper, not themselves personally.
I'm confused by what you are saying, when has America ever embraced an absolute free market?
...such a thing should be clearly seen as a duty of the State...
I find it interesting that you don't seem to understand one of the basic tenants of what the USA calls democracy (which is a misnomer), - that the people are the govt and deserve representation. China's record with govt. says that this is not the way they do business. Politics & military seem intermixed in China. The only "duty" the State has (in theory) in the USA is what the people set as a standard & I for one do not think universal health care is one of them.
as a member of WTO china has to act...! if they fail to do so trade sanction can, and in this case will be imposed...
the article explains this pretty good... please READ the full article...
you are right... if china is in wto he has to follow wto rules regardless its communist nature or not. if wto rules requires him to open its market for foreign media products, then he should have to.
you are right... if china is in wto he has to follow wto rules regardless its communist nature or not. if wto rules requires him to open its market for foreign media products, then he should have to.
Countries have other options: http://www.tradevoices.com/what-is-the-wto.html
And, "WTO Dispute Settlement and U.S. Law. Adoption of panel and appellate reports finding that a U.S. measure violates a WTO agreement does not give the reports direct legal effect in this country. Thus, federal law would not be affected until Congress or the Executive Branch, as the case may be, changed the law or administrative measure at issue."
And we all are aware how quickly Congress act to anything. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/74910.pdf
Countries have other options: http://www.tradevoices.com/what-is-the-wto.html
And, "WTO Dispute Settlement and U.S. Law. Adoption of panel and appellate reports finding that a U.S. measure violates a WTO agreement does not give the reports direct legal effect in this country. Thus, federal law would not be affected until Congress or the Executive Branch, as the case may be, changed the law or administrative measure at issue."
And we all are aware how quickly Congress act to anything. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/74910.pdf
rules or laws are nothing if there is no leverage. for a desperate guy, any damages he incurred to other can only be repaid by jailing him, if he can not provide any monetary remedy to the victim. but if he is rich instead, it would be a different thing.
the same token for wto rules. if china does not have current status as newly rich, who would ever complain its commerce practice? china has to think twice if US or other western countries apply retaliation measure if china is not complying.
Already in America the slavery is no less absolute, nor the propaganda any less pervasive than it is in China.
You believe what you choose to believe, as does everyone else.
I spent a little time (about a month or so) on my ride in to work listening to AM radio. They had a democratic talk show on. On the ride home, I listened to the same channel, with Rush Limbaugh on in the afternoon. The propaganda machine was in full effect, and you could side with either one if you listened to their arguments about the same topics.
The fact is, though, they were spewing one-sided beliefs to drive their own economies; that is to generate revenue and a steady listening audience. Much like Howard Stern. I'm sure there are days that man goes home wondering what the hell is wrong with some people. But those same wackos generate a serious business model.
My point is, do your own research and draw your own conclusions. Don't just rely on what people tell you.
I also wonder, do the Chinese people enjoy the same luxuries? Are they able to openly debate certain issues as we are here in the States? Maybe it seems they don't want to, but how would they know they wanted to if they were never taught to try?
The North Koreans have limited the revolt in their country by breeding it out. People there have been trained over generations to fear the State, and to also worship their Supreme Leader. Does this system lead to a better life for their people than, say the government of Norway?
The debates on these issues are without limit, and no one has the correct answer for sure. I, for one, am accustomed to speaking my mind (for better or worse) and I wouldn't like that to change. Maybe the Chinese people are used to having certain decisions taken care of for them, and they are happier for it. If not, things will change, just as they did here. All in time, I suppose.
As for the WTO, let's hope it's not as useless as the UN.
The impression I got was that the Chinese are largely satisfied with what is currently offered to them in terms of opportunity, and few of them care about freedom of expression with regard to politics. I just haven't seen evidence of it firsthand.
freedom of expression historically was rich in chinese society, but it has its own limit. china has its own unique civil administration system which is differently from the west. for 2000 years, per my guess, chinese realized that just expressing freely does not work. so they became very practical. anytime when they behaved rigidly, they failed miserably. they became deluded so much on communism dogma that they would think melting their wok would put the iron production to the top of the world in 1960s.
to a christian tradition country such as US, believing in dogma, such as freedom of expression, is the fundamental base for its society, even though every one knows there is no guarantee such freedom in every possible situation.
the difference between a chinese society and a western society can be analogous to the relationship between a play, its actors, and its audience. in chinese society(play), there is no clear line between actor and its audience, so that if you want to know it, you have to live through it; in a western society(play), actor is actor while audience is audience, so that if you want to know, you just need to observe.
current form of democracy is not the end of society or our world. there must be some better form of society ahead of us. otherwise, it is pretty pessimistic to human race. the dynamic of a play and its actor and its audience is changing constantly. maybe to a human, the time for such change looks like an eternity, but from history perspective, the change is just an instant. in 10-11th century china, its civil servant system was so advanced that even some current day democratic countries would not be able to match up. but it was brutally destroyed by mongols, not because chinese can not fight, but because they thought success can only be measured in term of moral supremacy not physical strength.
all i am trying to say is that we need a balanced view... politically, economically, socially, and morally.
rules or laws are nothing if there is no leverage. for a desperate guy, any damages he incurred to other can only be repaid by jailing him, if he can not provide any monetary remedy to the victim. but if he is rich instead, it would be a different thing.
the same token for wto rules. if china does not have current status as newly rich, who would ever complain its commerce practice? china has to think twice if US or other western countries apply retaliation measure if china is not complying.
We are talking about media imports.
Every country controls their media. In the US for example, foreigners cannot own tv or radio stations. Every communication device must pass FCC regulations and acts of Congress.
Ever wonder why it took so long to get HD TV? Ask your congressman.
China is not the only country to ban books, literature, movies, music, etc., in one respect or another. And that goes for the US even today.