Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (34452)	5/28/2003 10:10:34 AM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

I saw that article, does not worthwile reading, these guys are one-track-minded, and are pathetic! But since you have posted here, so here is my answer to his viewpoints: 1) China will not have ANY dramatic systemic change, so he will have to put up or Shut up! Every change in China will be slow, gradual, like "when conditions are ripe, success will come". There would have a lot of "evolution", but no "revolution". So if they are counting on there would be a China's Chernobyl, they will have a big disappointment. 2. Stop lecturing to China about "ethical behaviour", go to lecture his own gov. (the US and the British alike) first! Do NOT practice the things to others before practicing on themselves, like some wise man said (Confucius?). Chinese model has worked fine for the last 20 years, and will be working fine for the next 20 years. The last thing China needs now is the "lecture" given by an imperialist like the author of the article. 3.China will "set up systems at all levels that can deal with crisis management", but only because China has learned the lesson from SARS themselves, NOT because he suggested. Chinese can learn well from their own mistakes, do NOT need the "lecture" from a guy like him with some attitude problems towards China. 4. The phenomenon that local governments provide inaccurate data toward the central gov., is not new in China, just like a Chinese saying goes "Bao Xi Bu Bao You". It has thousands of years of history. Culture die hard, and the change will be slow. Everything is easier said than done, especially in case of China. 5. China has a very limited resource, it is hard to take care of everything. I have said many times that it is a struggle to simply feed the 1.3 billion people for any gov. with the resource in China. It is not like Chinese gov. does not want to invest in social system and program or not realize the problem, it is a matter of the priority. Look at what is happening now in the richest country of the world - the US of A: cutting social/educational funding while increasing defence budget. Luckily, after 20 years of rapid economic development, now Chinese gov. can afford, more than ever, to invest heavily in health care system now. So at least the direction is right, not like in the US, where it is heading to a wrong direction. And does the US did a better job when it first encountered AIDS? I don't think so, even though AIDS is much less infectious. SARS will do to Chinese gov. as what AIDS has done to the US gov. After SARS, Chinese gov. will get some very valuable personal experiences, and will make the necessary changes. SARS has much less to do with political system than to do with experience. One will realize this by looking what happens in HK or Canada. So it will be in vain to try to over-politicalize it. 6. As for his point #5: "the leadership needs to create a new system of information management" - I am wondering does the author meant to recommend the newly-adapted "information management system" under Bush gov. to Chinese gov.? LOL.