Sovereign nations ALWAYS have the final right to nationalize foreign property should things get out of hand.
All foreign investors expect is a rule of law that protect individual property rights and leads to transparent markets.
China would then see HUNDREDs of billions flow into the country and resolve those glaring unemployment problems.
Wow. Where to start?
The idea of "rights" is a western notion, I think. To link the concepts of "individual," "property," and "rights" to a discussion of China's economic development strikes me as somewhat unlikely. While I agree with what you say, I can't see the PRC moving in that direction without a major shift in their ideology.
In this country, we were very concerned with the rate of Japanese property ownership a few years ago, and we are a pretty open economy, comparatively. We allow foreign ownership in the grandiose notion of encouraging free trade for the benefit of the society as a whole. The PRC has no such objective, and their history supports their fear of outsiders. Thus, the PRC is a nation that wants to TAKE, preferably with little in exchange. I sorta hate to bring it up, but the situation seems (to me, at least) analogous to the Japanese situation in the late 1930's, where they were being choked by various western nations, mostly us (US). When they lashed out at us at Pearl Harbor, it was because in their view of the world they had no other choice.
We have similarly shown China the collar that we can apply if we want, thinking that they will see things as we do, and concede that it is better to trade and prosper than to fight for dominance. Now we get to see if they agree.
In the meantime, capital investment in China is a pretty risky business.
You sure inspire some weighty thoughts, Ron. <g>
jim |
