Slashdot Mirror

1973!

Umm, corruption is probably the wrong word.

(noto bene: I am only an amateur new institutional economist, so take this with a grain of mustard seed.)

There is a very good review of the actual problem at http://www.iisg.nl/hpw/papers/law-ma.pdf "LAW AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: THE CASE OF TRADITIONAL CHINA
- A REVIEW WITH SOME PRELIMINARY HYPOTHESES"

In a nutshell (may O'reilley forgive me) is that the Chinese have never had a rule based legal system for civil law, but one that was based on adjudication by social networks (common called gang or small town justice here in America)

In my opinion, at least, the reason is that Chinese has never engaged in much foreign trade, and foreign trade is the impetus for developing such institutions (Grief has a seminal paper contrasting Italian and Magrebhi traders in the middle ages illustrating the mechanism...see "Readings in New Institutional Economics")

You see, the two approaches to civil law are equivalent as long as you are dealing with your own territory. One you extend beyond that territory (as Italian and Mahgrabi traders did when they started operating in the far east) social network based civil law breaks down. It is not corruption, exactly, but rather the fact that it is a little difficult for social network interaction to adjudicate matters when there IS no direct social interaction. Rules, however, due not attenuate with distance. (For technogeeks, think distributed, long term transactions with no compensation spheres)

The Chinese have been expanding their economy worldwide, but they have not yet developed the institutions to make that happen viably, and, in another year or so, they are going to pay a terrible price for that. Unfortunately, so are the rest of us. We are starting to see the effects now.

Though it is hard for American (or anyone else, apparently) to understand, the one great benefit of the rise of Western capitalism has had is the establish of the institution of rule based civil law throughout the world trading communities. Granted, it is pretty weak in a lot of areas (You can't even get real mortgages in many third world countries, there is no guarantee you hold on to the property) but it is taking hold. Whatever you feel about Western economic imperialism, it is the only reason a global economy is possible.

Until the Chinese started getting adventurous in their search for access to foreign resources such as oil, and started eroding the institution of rule based law in those areas a side effect, replacing it with their own social network based civil law. You see this everywhere, from the export quality issues in China to the neoconservative social network regime issues with rule based law we face here in the United States. (Neoconservatives use a social network based civil law as a guiding principle, i.e. rule of law only applies to those NOT in their social network)

As I said, in the local areas, both basis's for civil law are roughly equivalent. When you get to long range interactions, however, social network based civil law breaks down. That why the Iraq war went bad, and why the subprime market went south. It is not corruption, it is the face that the compensating mechanism, the balance of the checks and balances, is missing.

For example We had the check (congressional permission, contract law) but we did not have the balance (congressional oversight, proper auditing, investigative journalism). Instead, social networks acted as the balance, but in both cases there was no opposing social network to PROVIDE a balance. (The "Dixie chicks" don't really count as a balance for the Iraq war. Not their fault, the Democrats didn't even count as much as the Dixie chicks did. Neither group has a significant social network support them.) Instead of having a rule of civil law emerge as a balance, an anti war social network emerged as a balance few years later. That is a very worrisome thing from an institutional economics point of view.

please don't confuse communism .. which really has nothing to do with politricks .. and fascism

but which has everything to do with economics .. communism is an economic model .. not a political model

it apples and oranges ..

just ask the people in Chile .. who had elected the world first democratically elected communist government ..

which was then promptly overthrown by a United States backed and orchestrated military Coup d'État ..lead by Augusto Pinochet .. on September 11, 1973

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pinochet.html

29 years to the day of September 11, 2001

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A716591

http://www.iisg.nl/collections/chile/

the ruling class could not leave something like democratic communism laying around to work it'self out .. it would put a big hole in the fascist/capitalist ideology ..

Did anybody but them care? No.

I don't disagree with much of what you wrote. I merely expressed the sentiment that any philosophy which can be said to be harmless must be so vacuous as to be worthless. Everything has within it some amount of harm as well as its good. I think in Mao's case his philosophy has done more harm than good when carried out - but that does not mean I disapprove of people reading it for themselves. Certainly my own fascination with Chinese propaganda posters would indicate that I don't disagree with this idea.

I will comment narrowly on one comment of yours: Also, even if the Little Red Book is harmful, as you suggest someone might apparently follow the tradition of Mao, what was that student going to do? Create a dictatorship and carry out a cultural revolution? In context, the answer is sadly "maybe". I would refer you to the actions of the Shining Path insurgents as just one example. These self-described Maoists are engaged in what can only be called terrorism, though it is not international terrorism of the sort that warrants US intervention.

Even if what was described in the article really happened - and I do think that is a big if, because this certainly sets off my fishy-smell detector - we are only getting half of the story. If there was a known association between this student and a Maoist insurgent group, it would at least place what happened in some kind of context, though it certainly does not justify it.

Since I'm a sucker for getting wildly misread on Slashdot, I'll throw in the side (and snide) comment that I do not think the student in question should have been able to get this book from a public university library, because I don't think there should have been any State university for him to check out the book from. :-)

Employers in the west never volunteered minimum wage, child labour laws, working hour restrictions, etc, etc, etc. It had to be fought for, and these people don't have a voice in the marketplaces where their goods are being sold.

Wrong. Before unions existed, some employers tried to improve the conditions of their workers. They were called "Social Entrepeneurs". Today, the responsibility of (especially big) businesses is coming back into the limelight (more in Europe than the US though) and we see Sustainability Reporting and social funds.

Your claim that a group of people is universally evil is classic fundamentalism. Those claims are a great rallying call for extremists, but if you really want to change things, it's better to be reasonable. That involves being a critical consumer and buying from companies that do well and boycotting those who don't act responsibly. It also means that as a voter, you try to support politicians who care about these things and support mandatory reporting guidelines on these subjects (it improves market transparancy, so right-wingers should support it too ;) ). As an employee, stand up for your rights and become a member of a (non-extremist) union. Finally, as an invester, look at social funds and responsible companies.

The most important thing to remember is that you don't have to be an antiglobalist or such. You can do your part based on your own agenda.

Clueless posting is fun, huh? The creative spelling just adds to it.

If you think that DRAGON BALL thing gonna let China rule the world, please, think again.

The Dragon Ball chip is a US product. Motorola has been selling them for, oh, 6 years now.

According to their plan, the Chinese want to catch up with the world standard sometimes at 2015-2025 timeframe.

Oh no! China has a PLAN. We know how well their last plan worked!

If there's any disaster happens to USA, China's plan will only be accelerated.

Any disaster which hurts the US will slow China's development. They won't have education for their engineers, they won't have research to sponge off of, and there won't be an overseas market for the cheap manufactured goods that provides all their discretionary income.

A snappy slogan for bumperstickers like "Friends don't let friends buy CDs" would be a great thing too.

Graphic posters like AdBusters puts out lampooning the record companies is another idea. I tried to adapt an old Maoist poster from the Great Leap Forward to a picture of Hilary Rosen handing out CDs to handcuffed, smiling masses, but I'm a programmer, not a photoshop guy.

Uphold Science, Eradicate Superstition, 1999

It's a representation of China's Space Program.

Uphold Science, Eradicate Superstition, 1999 (which is located at: Stefan Landsberger's Chinese Propaganda Poster Pages - Falun Gong

They've decided to replace the idea of a Communist utopia with a faith in scientific progress. It's really their only chance to hold onto a population that is showing a renewed interest in religion.

I believe they'll do this, if they don't collapse first. From the Red Chinese government perspective, they have to to survive.

Uphold Science, Eradicate Superstition, 1999 (which is located at: Stefan Landsberger's Chinese Propaganda Poster Pages - Falun Gong

They've decided to replace the idea of a Communist utopia with a faith in scientific progress. It's really their only chance to hold onto a population that is showing a renewed interest in religion.

I believe they'll do this, if they don't collapse first. From the Red Chinese government perspective, they have to to survive.

That's "Chairman Gates". And don't you forget it lest ye be sent off for re-education!!!