Re: [NATPA Forum] FW: [I Love Taiwan] Re: [BATA] RE: ??????????????????
Shin Liu
Ma/KMT's hidden (or not so covert) agenda of his dream as the unit-er of China and Taiwan becomes an open act (even though he is still trying to disguise the signing of ECFA as pure economic act), and who can trust him any longer for those middle-of-the-roaders. Ma was decorated as the future bright political star before the election, is totally exposed of his incompetence, his authoritarian characteristics, and as the guardian of the old KMT corrupted system.
For DPP to success, is to win over the majority of the voters as the first priority, but not through the intentional cheating and with lies like Ma/KMT doth. But with the priority and urgency to fulfill the majority's needs. TI will become the logical consequence of guiding the majority through the educational process of being proud of being Taiwanese and having the power to make decision for her own fates. If we are only speaking the mantra of what we want (ie TI), but without any practical mean to achieve it, we are only day dreaming. And the shortest path to our destination may not be the most direct path.
Shin
From: Peter Chow <chow...@yahoo.com>
To: Johnson C Wang <Johnson...@aero.org>; RockyTsao <Ts...@ortpatent.com>; Chung-Chih Li <cl...@ilstu.edu>
Cc: natpa...@googlegroups.com; tai...@cinci.rr.com
Sent: Sat, June 12, 2010 6:21:55 AM
Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] FW: [I Love Taiwan] Re: [BATA] RE: ??????????????????
Perhaps, I could share with you my readings from a book review on Su Chi's book which quoted what Tsai ying -wen told Su about the " Two state theory", under which Tsai was the major architect when she served at the National Sceurity Council and Su was the Chairman at the MAC.
Tsai told Su " Although the Two-State theory won't be mentioned, it will be implemented" ( P. 91 on Su' book 2009, Routhledge).
We all know the Two -state theory was developed to " One country, each side ( of the Taiwan Strait) under CSB, but not implemted due to the pressure Washington and Beijing.
If Tsai could implement the Two State theory when DPP returns to the power, can you accept it ?
If not, what are the alternatives ? I am juat curious about any alternative innovations which could win the votes' supports and be implemented. Remember there are two millions plus taishangs working in China and mail ballot may become a reality before 2008 elections. What kinds of China's policy could DDP have ???
Ambiguity with hidden " one countru each side" is one of the alternatives . There is always a gap between campaign and policy implementation.
Obama campaigned on the promise to " change, yes, we can". Did anyboday ever ask him change for better or or worse ?? " What We can ? or We can what ??".
Peter Chow
Dept. of Economics
The City College - CUNY
Convent Ave. & 138th St.
New York, NY 10031
Tel: (212)650-8268, 650-6206
Fax: (212)650-8287, 650-6341
--- On Fri, 6/11/10, Chung-Chih Li <cl...@ilstu.edu> wrote:
> From: Chung-Chih Li <cl...@ilstu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] FW: [I Love Taiwan] Re: [BATA] RE: ??????????????????
> To: "Johnson C Wang" <Johnson...@aero.org>, "Tsao, Rocky" <Ts...@ortpatent.com>
> Cc: natpa...@googlegroups.com, tai...@cinci.rr.com
> Date: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:32 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Don't just pick up what you
> want, What irritated me the
> most back then was ::"兩岸人民源自於相同的血緣、文化和歷史背景，....共同來處理未來“一個中國”的問題。......
>
> 兩岸原是一家人，也有共存共榮的相同目標，既然希望生活在同一個屋簷下，.....進而共同尋求....、政治統合的新架構。"
> "
>
> When I first tiem learned this, I
> gave the f word, some
> TIers told me that's was just
> "放屁安狗心"。OK then. That's
> really why: "almost all self-described
> TI activists were silenced.
>
> Regards,
> Chung-Chih Li
>
>
> ----- Original Message
> -----
> From:
> Johnson
> C Wang
> To: Tsao, Rocky
>
> Cc: 'Chung-Chih
> Li' ; natpa...@googlegroups.com
> ;
> tai...@cinci.rr.com
>
> Sent: Friday, June
> 11, 2010 5:23 PM
> Subject: RE: [NATPA
> Forum] FW: [I Love
> Taiwan] Re: [BATA] RE: ??????????????????
>
> Abien's
> "秉持民主對等的原則，在既有的基礎之上，以善意營造合作的條件，共同來處理未來“一個中國”的問題。"
> is totally
> different from Tsia EW's "“不預設政治前提.”. Abien has "對等的原則." I believe
> that is why "almost all self-described TI
> activists were silent "
> If Tsia had said "both
> sides 不預設政治前提" I believe the story would
> be totally different .
>
> J.
> Wang
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> "Tsao,
> Rocky" <Ts...@ortpatent.com>
>
>
> To:
> 'Chung-Chih
> Li' <cl...@ilstu.edu>,
> "tai...@cinci.rr.com"
> <tai...@cinci.rr.com>,
> "natpa...@googlegroups.com"
>
> <natpa...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> "'i_love...@googlegroups.com'"
>
> <i_love...@googlegroups.com>
>
>
>
> Date:
> 06/11/2010 03:07
> PM
>
> Subject:
> RE: [NATPA
> Forum] FW: [I Love Taiwan]
> Re: [BATA] RE:
> ??????????????????
>
> Sent by:
> natpa...@googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Some of us are now
> venomously attacking
> Tsai Ing-Wen for proposing a dialog with China that is
> “不預設政治前提.”
> Yet, almost all
> self-described TI activists were
> silent when Abian declared on December 31, 2000:
>
> "兩岸人民源自於相同的血緣、文化和歷史背景，我們相信雙方的領導人一定有足夠的智慧和創意，秉持民主對等的原則，在既有的基礎之上，以善意營造合作的條件，共同來處理未來“一個中國”的問題。事實上，依據中華民國憲法，“一個中國”原本並不是問題。...
>
>
> 兩岸原是一家人，也有共存共榮的相同目標，既然希望生活在同一個屋簷下，就更應該要相互體諒、相互提攜
> ...
>
> 從兩岸經貿與文化的統合開始著手，逐步建立兩岸之間的信任，進而共同尋求兩岸永久和平、政治統合的新架構。"
>
> By the way, the deep
> blue continued to support
> Ma during the 2008 presidential campaign despite his
> claim that he would
> remain a Taiwanese even after he had burned to
> ashes.
>
>
> From: Chung-Chih Li
> [mailto:cl...@ilstu.edu]
>
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:10 PM
> To: Tsao, Rocky;
> tai...@cinci.rr.com
> Cc:
> natpa...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] FW: [I Love
> Taiwan] Re: [BATA] RE: ??????????????????
>
> 「即興寫幾行字」未必就那麼容易，像以下Allen的即興幾行就建議不出一個台獨者合理的邏輯來。他以中國的前提：「一切對話必須在 “一中” 的前提」為真，導出「蔡英文的所謂
> “不預設政治前提”, 應該指的是 “民進黨先去放棄自己的立場” 」的結論，「親痛仇快」。
>
> 當然，「蔡英文
> “不預設政治前提” 」也導不出「中國不預設
> “一中” 前提」的結論來，否則就真的是「對獨裁者抱幻想...」。但蔡英文也沒這麼說啊！ 我們一天到晚呼籲中國正視台灣民意，一邊一國的事實，善待藏獨，疆獨，是不是也是「對獨裁者抱幻想...」？
>
> 好的談判者，不在於設定偉大的談判前提；好的談判者，在於取得豐富的談判結果。當你不知怎麼談時，最好的策略就是設定一個不可能的談判前提，然後免談，中國就是如此，他根本不知道要和民進黨講什麼。當他們不得不和民進黨談時，例如民進黨再度執政，他們也可以用自我勝利法則，就是用Allen的邏輯來損你，然後自認台獨第一勇的人就又開始在自家起童，「親痛仇快」。
>
> 「倒戈」的指控很嚴厲，除了打自己人外，還要投敵；目前大概只有賴幸媛符合。
>
>
> Regards,
> Chung-Chih Li
>
>
> PS. 以上為「即興寫幾行」，歡迎證明「仇快」。
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Tsao,
> Rocky
> To: 'tai...@cinci.rr.com'
> Cc: 'natpa...@googlegroups.com'
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 8:12
> AM
> Subject: [NATPA Forum] FW: [I Love
> Taiwan]
> Re: [BATA] RE: ??????????????????
>
> You
> said:
> "知識界大半只能停留在贊不贊同的論述上，做一個即興寫幾行字，或深思寫長篇闊論的旁觀人。無奈
> ..." No need to be
> so frustrated. As long as we are aiming at sway
> voters and what we say
> can sway them, we will be doing just fine.
>
> You also said:
>
> "有時自己人倒戈相向，親痛仇快，更可怕有時自己人倒戈相向，親痛仇快，更可怕。"
> No need to be so
> frightened. As long as we stick to fact-based
> issues and do not get
> personal, expressing opposite views is actually conducive
> to the
> movement.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
>
> From: i_love...@googlegroups.com [mailto:i_love...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Taitzer
> Sent: Friday, June
> 11, 2010 7:19 AM
> To:
> bay-area-taiw...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [I Love
> Taiwan] Re: [BATA] RE: ??????????????????
>
> 不管是誰說的，以下兩個引句的說法極具真意：「對獨裁者抱幻想，對民主台灣來說，則是一個危險的信號」以及「朝野兩黨領導人對中共統治者的浪漫情懷，無法不令人為台灣的前途捏把汗」。
>
> 中國統台的的預設立場清清楚楚，牢不可破，朝野兩黨對中國不預設立場的期許，是與虎謀皮，利害互相抵觸，無法商量；一廂情願，說了碰壁，等於沒說。民進黨政治領袖要步步爲營，創新民意，而不是面對著國民黨六十年來所造就的懶散民意，就失去自己舉直措枉的責任與堅持。
>
>
>
> 無法不令人感嘆與惋惜，我們知識界大半只能停留在贊不贊同的論述上，做一個即興寫幾行字，或深思寫長篇闊論的旁觀人。無奈中，有時自己人倒戈相向，親痛仇快，更可怕。
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Allen
> Kuo
> To: bay-area-taiw...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 1:27
> AM
> Subject: [BATA] RE:
>
> 蔡英文領導下的民進黨與中國的交流平台
>
>
> 蔡英文真愛說笑. 與中國進行對話,
> 對方怎麼可能 “不預設政治前提”? 中國已經講的很清楚了. 不管台灣是誰,
> 一切對話必須在 “一中” 的前提之下 (而台灣當然就是中國的一部份), 才有可能進行. 多年來中國從來沒有絲毫地改變這個立場.
>
>
> 所以我們解讀蔡英文的所謂 “不預設政治前提”, 應該指的是 “民進黨先去放棄自己的立場”. 也就是蔡英文領導下的民進黨不再堅持台灣主權的意思.
> 這樣一來, 民進黨與中國的交流平台當然就很順利地搭起來了.
>
> Allen
> Kuo
>
>
> From: bay-area-taiw...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bay-area-taiw...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of david
> chou
> Sent: Thursday,
> June 10, 2010 8:40 PM
> To:
> bay-area-taiw...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [BATA]
> 蔡英文領導下的民進黨與中國的交流平台
>
>
>
> 蔡英文領導下的民進黨與中國的交流平台
>
>
> 一
>
> 中國時報於2010年6月9日有一則簡短而不起眼的報導，標題是「民進黨規劃建構兩岸交流平台」，自由時報在同一天也有類似的簡短報導。
>
>
> 中國時報的報導如下:
>
> //民進黨主席蔡英文5月初拋出不預設政治前提，不排除與中國進行對話後，民進黨近期已委託民間智庫規劃兩岸交流平台，未來將透過此一平台，展開不預設政治前提的各項兩岸交流對話，希望讓中國官方或民間，都能聽到不同於國民黨的聲音。//
> //不希望國民黨壟斷兩岸議題發言權，民進黨在蔡英文發表不預設政治前提，不排除與中國對話言論後，也積極規劃建構兩岸交流平台。民進黨發言人蔡其昌說，民進黨希望透過此一平台，向中國傳達不同於國民黨的台灣主流聲音。蔡其昌：『這規劃重點是設計出一個平台，讓中國無論官方或民間，聽得到台灣不同於國民黨的聲音，換言之，可聽到民進黨或台灣人民不一樣的聲音，而這個聲音恐怕才是主流民意，我們希望透過這個平台，可與中國展開正常沒有被矮化的交流。』//
> //媒體詢問，民進黨是否可能透過此一平台指派黨公職登陸交流互訪？蔡其昌表示，這並不是單方面可以決定，需要共識基礎，目前平台形式仍在規劃中，何時建構完成？也沒有確切時間表。//
> 二
> 民進黨對中國的態度與立場，應該已在變化或調整，這不知是在量變要到質變的過程還是已到質變的階段。
>
> 倘若民進黨對中國的態度與立場與國親新有相當的同質性，台灣就被中國和平併吞了。
>
> 民進黨的阿英說，她準備「在不預設立場的前提下」，讓民進黨開始與中國共產黨接觸，這意味什麼?沒有人能合理期待北京會放棄「一國兩制，併吞台灣」，而大家則可以合理推測蔡英文的「不預設立場」將會使「一邊一國」逐漸模糊或淡化。
>
>
>
> =================================================
>
>
> 看曹長青評胡錦濤、民進黨的阿英及中國國民黨的老英
>
> (2010年5月24日發表)
>
> 「台灣建州運動」在前些日發表了兩篇文章，評論民進黨主席蔡英文對中國國家主席胡錦濤的「觀察」。
>
>
> 蔡英文曾向媒體透露，「她曾觀察胡錦濤」，她說「胡看起來和善，是理性的人」。
>
>
> 蔡英文也說，她準備「在不預設立場的前提下」，讓民進黨開始與中國共產黨接觸。
>
>
> 所謂「不預設立場」，對中共而言，是「不堅持在台灣是中國的一部分」的前提下，與台灣的民進黨接觸及談判，對民進黨而言，則是「不反對在台灣必須與中國進行所謂統一的前提下」，與中共或北京進行接觸或談判。
>
>
>
> 中共與北京對民進黨，不可能不預設立場，但若民進黨對中共或北京不預設立場，台灣就會土崩瓦解，因為包括台聯黨在內，台灣其他黨派或勢力都沒有力量來做為保衛台灣的力量。
>
>
>
> 曹長青「忍了一段時間」，沒有對阿英發脾氣，今天雖然批評了阿英，但下筆十分客氣。他只說「對獨裁者抱幻想，對民主台灣來說，則是一個危險的信號」以及「朝野兩黨領導人對中共統治者的浪漫情懷，無法不令人為台灣的前途捏把汗」，但沒有痛批阿英，看起來他現在對台灣改採遠距離冷靜觀察，可能不再用太強烈的感情投入。
> --
> 請隨時 造訪我們的網站 http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan
>
> 若要退訂此論壇，請送電子郵件給
> i_love_taiwan+unsub...@googlegroups.com
> 標題及本文空白就可.
> To unsubscribe from this group, please send email to
> i_love_taiwan+unsub...@googlegroups.com
> You can leave Subject and Body
> blank.
> --
> This forum is restricted to NATPA members only.
> The
> views and opinions expressed in every post are strictly
> those of the author
> and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of
> NATPA.
> *
> To
> post: Send your message as an email to
> natpa...@googlegroups.com.
> To
> unsubscribe: Send an email to
> natpa_forum...@googlegroups.com
> --
> This forum is restricted to NATPA members only.
> The
> views and opinions expressed in every post are strictly
> those of the author
> and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of
> NATPA.
> *
> To
> post: Send your message as an email to
> natpa...@googlegroups.com.
> To
> unsubscribe: Send an email to
> natpa_forum...@googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> This forum is restricted to NATPA members only.
>
> The views and opinions expressed in every post are strictly
> those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views
> or opinions of NATPA.
>
> *
>
> To post: Send your message as an email to
> natpa...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To unsubscribe: Send an email to
> natpa_forum...@googlegroups.com
--
This forum is restricted to NATPA members only.
The views and opinions expressed in every post are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of NATPA.
*
To post: Send your message as an email to natpa...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe: Send an email to natpa_forum...@googlegroups.com
Frank S T Hsiao
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON DISCUSSIONS.
SHIN WROTE: For DPP to success, is to win over the majority of the voters as the first priority,(THAT IS RIGHT. BY ALL MEANS.)
but not through the intentional cheating and with lies like Ma/KMT doth. (NO, WE SHOULD USE ALL RESONABLE MEANS TO ACHIEVE IT. BESIDES, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, WHETHER IT IS “CHEATING OR LYING” IS VERY HARD TO DECIDE. FOR EXAMPLE, MA CLAIMS HIS ECFA IS FOR TAIWANESE AND FOR TAIWAN’S FUTURE ONLY. WE CAN SAY HE IS CHEATING, BUT YOU CAN ALSO THINK HE IS SINCERE (AND STILL MANY TAIWANESE BELIEVE IN HIM). SO WHAT YOU SAYING “CHEATING AND LYING” IS YOUR SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT. IN ANY CASE, WHOEVER WINS THE ELECTION, WHO GET THE POWER. THE IMPORTANT THING IS YOU GET ELECTED. YOU SHOULD BE FLEXIBLE, AND DO NOT BARK AT WRONG TREES)
But with the priority and urgency to fulfill the majority's needs.(YES, THE MAJORITY NEED IS HARD TO GRASP. DO YOU THINK CURRENTLY MA IS FULFILLING THE “MAJORITY” NEEDS?)
TI will become the logical consequence (NOT AT ALL.)
of guiding the majority through the educational process (NO, YOU ARE CONFUSING THE LONG RUN PROJECT WITH THE SHORT RUN NEED OF ELECTION )
of being proud of being Taiwanese and having the power to make decision for her own fates
(WELL SAID, BUT THAT IS WHAT WE ARE STRUGGLING FOR. INSTEAD OF YOUR ABSTRACT THESIS, WHAT IS YOUR CONCRETE SUGGESTIONS? FOR EXAMPLE WHAT IS YOU SUGGESTIONS ON “不預設政治前提.”? THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE AND THAT IS WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW)
If we are only speaking the mantra of what we want (ie TI), but without any practical mean to achieve it, we are only day dreaming. And the shortest path to our destination may not be the most direct path (I WILL TAKE IT THAT YOUR “INDIRECT” PATH SHOULD INCLUDING ALL REASONABLE MEANS, INCLUDE FLEXIBLE INTERPRETATION OF EVENTS. ARE YOU CONTRADICTING YOURSELF?)
SO FROM MY ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, 不預設政治前提 IS A CORRECT POLICY. OF COURSE, AS ALLEN KUO AT THE END OF THIS POSTING POINTED OUT, THE CHINESE NEVER EVER不預設政治前提, AND SO不預設政治前提 IS ONLY DPP, AND SO DPP IS SUBMITTING TO CHINESE UNIFICATION PROPAGANDA. THIS IS ONE INTERPRETATION.
But HOW DO ALLEN KUO KNOWS THAT DPP’S不預設政治前提 IS GIVING UP TI AND SUBMITTING TO CHINA? IN FACT CHINESE ALSO CAN SEE DPP WILL NOT GIVE UP TI CLEARLY. WHY ALLEN ONLY BLAMES DPP? I ASKED ALLEN BEFORE, AND I ASK HIM AGAIN, APPARENTLY YOU HAVE A LITTLE BRAIN, BUT WHICH SIDE ARE YOU IN?
IGNORING THE STUPID QUESTION, IF BOTH DPP AND THE CHINESE AGREES TO TALK UNDER不預設政治前提 (EVEN KNOWING THE OTHER SIDE IS CHEATING), THAT IS A GOOD THING FOR DPP AND CHINA, BUT WE DON’T SAY IT. UNDER CURRENT INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC POLITICAL SITUATION, BOTH SIDES CANNOT IGNORE EACH OTHER, TAIWAN IS TOO MUCH INVOLVED WITH CHINA. DPP CAN NOT AFFORD TO IGNORE CHINA, AND SHOULD ACTIVELY TALK WITH CHINA (IN FACT I DOUBT CHINA WILL TALK NOW). IF不預設政治前提 WORKS, THAT IS BETTER, IF NOT, TIME IS NOT RIGHT YET. WAIT UNTIL DPP GET ELECTED. MY POINT IS THAT IT IS SENSELESS TO ATTACK DPP’S 不預設政治前提.
AS FOR PETER AND CCL’S QUESTION OF WHETHER “Tsai could implement the Two State theory.” YES AND NO. YES, THAT IS THE BASIC PREMISE THAT WE SUPPORT DPP (IF NOT, WE WILL FORCE DPP TO TAKE THIS POSITION. BUT GET DPP ELECTED FIRST). BUT NO, SINCE IT IS POLITICAL SENSITIVE AND MANY PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO SAY IT OR AFRAID OF CHINA, AND AS SHIN SAID, WE STILL NEED TO “EDUCATE” TAIWANSE. THE BEST WAY IS NOT TO SAY IT NOW. TAKE A “NO ASK NO TELL” POLICY OR THE POLICH OF STRAGIC AMBUGUITY (SHIN, IS THIS WHAT YOU CALL “CHEATING.”? THIS IS WHAT I CALL FLEXIBLILITY).
::"兩岸人民源自於相同的血緣、文化和歷史背景，....共同來處理未來“一個中國”的問題。......
> 兩岸原是一家人，也有共存共榮的相同目標，既然希望生活在同一個屋簷下，.....進而共同尋求....、政治統合的新架構。"
NICE WORDS. NATURALLY, I DON’T LIKE 同一個屋簷下 AND 政治統合. YOU CAN SAY THIS AFTER TI, BUT NOT BEFORE TI. BUT I DON’T BLAME CSB, SINCE I UNDERSTAND THAT WAS THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND COMMON CONCEPTION AT THAT TIME, OR EVEN TODAY. I WOULD THINK THAT BY SAYING THIS IF YOU CAN ATTRACT MIDDLE VOTERS, I WILL SIMPLY LOUGHING IT OFF. IT IS THE SAME AS MA SAID HE LOVES TAIWAN AND HE IS TAIWANESE. IF BLUE CAMP CAN ACCEPT MA, WHY COULDN’T GREEN CAMP ACCEPT CSB? NOTHING TO BE SERIOUS ABOUT.ALL WE NEED IS VOTES AND WIN THE ELECTION. PERIOD.
HOPE THIS WILL CLARIFY SOME CONFUSIONS.
Peter Chow
Frank :
Well said. To implement the Two-state or one country on each side is our goal. But, to achieve it, we need to be more flexible as Frank said.
For example, everybody had known that I am against the ECFA from the beginning and still anainst it. But, if voters in Taipei have been brain washed by KMT and believed it, and Su Cheng Chang has to take a " soft stand" on it to win. I will still support Su.
If Su ( DPP) gets a chance , then ECFA could be executed differently than what would be done under KMT. If DPP wins in 2012, Dpp can put ECFA into referendum as well.
If Su insists on against ECFA and lose the election just because of that, then there is no chance.
Frank, can you agree that is another aspect of the " theory of the second best " in political economy ??? |
|
Peter Chow Dept. of Economics The City College - CUNY Convent Ave. & 138th St. New York, NY 10031 Tel: (212)650-8268, 650-6206 Fax: (212)650-8287, 650-6341 |
| --- On Sat, 6/12/10, Frank S T Hsiao <frank...@colorado.edu> wrote: |
Shutsung Liao
I just saw from Newspapers that, in China, 1% of rich (and politically
powerful) guys control >41% of all $$$ in the country. This is worse
than in democratic capitalist countries in the world. So, my stupid
question is what is the meaning of 'Communism' in China? May be Ma
likes to join them for $$$.
Shutsung Liao
Peter Chow
China's income distrubtion well exceeded the warning threshold of the creteria set by the World Bank. The World Bank set the Gini coefficient of 0.4 . Over and beyond Gini 0.4 , which China had passed over years ago, would lead to social unrest. ( Another more commonly understand criteria is the ratios of top 20% of houshold income relative to that of the bottom 20%).
As a communist country, Chinese people sacrificed their freedom and democracy to get more equitable income and no inflation ( not out of thier own choice).
But now, China has had unequitable distribution of income, high inflation of 3.5%, and high unemployment rates. So, Communisim faced the legitimacy crisis in China.
Therefore, the CCP used " nationalism" to motivate Chinese people, used Olympic and World's fair, the holding of $ 2 trillions of foreign exchanges to legitimize its regime and to entice Taiwanese businessmen. CCP teaches Chinese people that China is better now than it was before, but not worse than the other countries with similar levels of developments.
Unfortunately, some people in Taiwan still nostalgia about their " great mother country with beautuful landscape", and in favor of unifying with their motherland in the near future.
Peter Chow
Dept. of Economics
The City College - CUNY
Convent Ave. & 138th St.
New York, NY 10031
Tel: (212)650-8268, 650-6206
Fax: (212)650-8287, 650-6341
--- On Sun, 6/13/10, Shutsung Liao <sl...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> --This forum is restricted to NATPA members only.The views
Shutsung Liao
Thank you very much for Peter and CP's very important comments. Can
Peter tell us more (whenever you have time and not difficult) what is
Gini coefficient or top and bottom 20% ratios in China?
S. Liao
On Jun 13, 2010, at 6:36 AM, Peter Chow wrote:
> Professor Liao:
>
> China's income distrubtion well exceeded the warning threshold of
> the creteria set by the World Bank. The World Bank set the Gini
> coefficient of 0.4 . Over and beyond Gini 0.4 , which China had
> passed over years ago, would lead to social unrest. ( Another more
> commonly understand criteria is the ratios of top 20% of houshold
> income relative to that of the bottom 20%).
>
> As a communist country, Chinese people sacrificed their freedom and
> democracy to get more equitable income and no inflation ( not out of
> thier own choice).
>
> But now, China has had unequitable distribution of income, high
> inflation of 3.5%, and high unemployment rates. So, Communisim faced
> the legitimacy crisis in China.
>
> Therefore, the CCP used " nationalism" to motivate Chinese people,
> used Olympic and World's fair, the holding of $ 2 trillions of
> foreign exchanges to legitimize its regime and to entice Taiwanese
> businessmen. CCP teaches Chinese people that China is better now
> than it was before, but not worse than the other countries with
> similar levels of developments.
>
> Unfortunately, some people in Taiwan still nostalgia about their "
> great mother country with beautuful landscape", and in favor of
> unifying with their motherland in the near future.
>
>
> CP Yeh wrote:
The social evolution model of Marx said the human society evolves
from feudalism society, to capitalism society, to socialism society,
and finally reaches the communism society. CCP attempted to jump from
one end (feudalism) to the other end (communism), and failed
miserably. They are now going back to the loop to start all over
again. This means that their social evolution is 200 years behind the
world, and they will have to go through another bloody socialism
revolution again in order to reach the communism society they believe.
>
>
>
>
>