Had a glance of your blog will read more later — don’t be too tough on yourself or Dave Chiang. No one who makes comments is “evil or nasty,” only those doers that create wars and harm innocent people.

Peace my fellow

The reason I feel compelled to post is basically because Dave Chiang gets it wrong, and if people with first hand information don’t post on blogs, this decreases public understand of the markets. I’m now one of the evil, nasty people DC thinks is trying to enslave China, and a core part of the conspiracy.

Things don’t work the way he thinks it does.

Two factors:

1) between 1992 and 2006, China was shutting down inefficient state owned enterprises causing large amounts of unemployment. The net jobs numbers need to take it account that that China was shedding huge numbers of jobs as it moved to a market economy. The first people in line for these new jobs were the urban unemployed.

2) Most of the recent job growth has been in the informal sectors and may be hard to see in the statistics. Also, averaging over long periods of time hides a lot of shorter term changes. It makes no sense to be to average between 1982 and 2006, and I suspect that if you average over shorter periods you will get a better picture of what is going on.

http://twofish.wordpress.com/

And it’s not going to change anytime soon.

koteli

http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/458.pdf

“To no one’s surprise, the ratio between rich (households in the top 10% of the income distribution) and poor (those in the bottom 10%) is considerably larger in the US than in any other rich democracy. Part of the explanation (though only a part, to be sure) is the fact that US government policies do considerably less to redistribute income than policies in other countries.

Why are Americans so much less interested in income distribution than, say, Canadians or Australians? I’m not sure. As we think about ways to improve the US’s rather tattered social safety net, that’s an issue worth thinking more about.”

http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/458.pdf

“To no one’s surprise, the ratio between rich (households in the top 10% of the income distribution) and poor (those in the bottom 10%) is considerably larger in the US than in any other rich democracy. Part of the explanation (though only a part, to be sure) is the fact that US government policies do considerably less to redistribute income than policies in other countries.

Why are Americans so much less interested in income distribution than, say, Canadians or Australians? I’m not sure. As we think about ways to improve the US’s rather tattered social safety net, that’s an issue worth thinking more about.”

No one’s comments will be considered “stupid”, only misguided actions and inactions.

Venezuela would be a start for Latin America.

There are weaknesses in all countries and we should help each other out. The principle of “Communism” was not meant to be labeled an “Evil Empire” but striving to distribute a nation’s wealth and burden equally, however perfect or not. Each country should solve its problems at its own pace without being pressured or tampered – things will improve if sufficient time is allowed to let it transpire. Countries should not sponsor revolutions in any other countries – it’s a waste of time and resources when they ought to be put in good use to improve the welfare of its own citizens.

if anyone who actually lives in China is able to risk a comment on the quality and safety of its food and health products.

One possible similarity between ‘China’ and ‘Russia’ is that so many of their ‘successful’ sectors seem to be based on JV’s with ‘Western’ companies – and that niether seem to have a whole lot of strong national brands: “Russian Machines… will produce auto parts in Russia with Canada’s Magna, the GAZ press office said Wednesday…” http://en.rian.ru/business/20070523/65975124.html