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: RealMuLan who wrote (54034)	10/6/2004 11:45:43 AM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

More thought: is there much difference bet. China’s one-party system and the US two-party system? My observation is: no. For a lot of westerners, the head of state in China is such a dictator. As a matter of fact, almost all the decision has to be made through the Political Bureau, including Mao’s era and Mao himself. And why Jiang has resigned? Because of some corruption. Yes, there is no hearings, months long of investigation, and millions of dollars of tax payers’ money spend, but as long as there is fact, even the head of state has to resign. Until 1960s, a couple of ministers at national level in China were not even CCP members. Is that one person, one vote system that important for China now? I don’t think so. At the present stage, if China were to adopt one person one vote system, there would be wide spread (in millions) “vote for cash” business, and the person who is most likely elected will be an extreme nationalist. Cost of voting system is another issue China has to consider. Just yesterday’s vice presidential debate in the US cost $1.25 million for preparations. Who will pay for them eventually? Tax payers. As 111th nation in terms of per capita income ranking, China should spend money somewhere else. And talk about socialist, Canada and the US now have more socialist welfare than China.

To: RealMuLan who wrote (54034)	10/6/2004 6:36:37 PM
From: Taikun	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<The matter of the truth is China will have to keep some socialist aspects (your word: "remnants of its former self that prevail despite the high tech factories and infrastructure"). These will NEVER go> Inconclusion, therefore, politically there is just as much 'OLD' as 'NEW' about China. Your caps emphasizing the 'NEW' China when it is in fact pretty much like the 'OLD' China is just an attempt to disguise what many know about China. When you use caps, it makes you appear like you are losing the argument. It is just like in the Presidential debate where Bush squirms and Kerry remains his posture. It comes across like one person is getting to the other in an argument. Caps or squirms, you know who's winning.

To: RealMuLan who wrote (54034)	10/7/2004 2:30:23 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

<For a country like China, some socialism is a necessity for remaining stability. Sorry if you, or others, don't like it. As long as majority of Chinese like it, that is what matters.> Haw, haw, haw!! Have you taken a poll or had a referendum or do you have the Word written on tablets of stone handed down by some deity who you can simply take at their word? If they dare stand in that big flat space in Beijing to express an opinion, there are plenty of thugs just waiting to attack them! Do you have a link to the referendum results? Giggle... Mqurice PS: The Thousand Year Reich was "never" going to go either. But the National Socalists, aka the Nazis, are dead and buried [other than a few aged remnants]. Good riddance. <The matter of the truth is China will have to keep some socialist aspects (your word: "remnants of its former self that prevail despite the high tech factories and infrastructure"). These will NEVER go. > Never is even longer than 1000 years. You do have grand plans!