Why don't the said uber rich make comparable donations to causes in China?
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
Why don't the said uber rich make comparable donations to causes in China?
Felix Greene was the person to whom i was referring to.
broadsword
Brigadier
Maybe they do, but I am sure the donations are nowhere near what they gave to their alma maters as that would be publicised loud and clear. It takes compassion, empathy and humility to be a real philantropist and Jack Ma is showing the way.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
All those rich Chinese who donate to foreign Alumni must be ashamed of themselves I just don't understand the mentality of those low life
It is good now the cell phone revolution bring the problem of rural poverty front and center Anyway The boy get invited to Beijing and beome center of public attention
Though as usual NY Times spin it differently and consulting those Chinese academic who in their cushy western post criticized but do nothing
China’s Propagandists Wanted a Hero. ‘Frost Boy’ Fit the Bill.
By JAN. 23, 2018
Now Wang Fuman, the 8-year-old Chinese student known as Frost Boy, is taking on a new role: propaganda star.
Fuman was thrust into the spotlight this month when a teacher at his school in southern China shared a photo showing him covered in frost, the result of a 2.8-mile trek to school on a frigid day. The picture provoked a national conversation about the tens of millions of children who live without adequate food, clothing and shelter in the Chinese countryside.
Now the government is turning Fuman’s story into a rallying cry for a robust, resilient China.
It is good now the cell phone revolution bring the problem of rural poverty front and center Anyway The boy get invited to Beijing and beome center of public attention
Though as usual NY Times spin it differently and consulting those Chinese academic who in their cushy western post criticized but do nothing
China’s Propagandists Wanted a Hero. ‘Frost Boy’ Fit the Bill.
By JAN. 23, 2018
Now Wang Fuman, the 8-year-old Chinese student known as Frost Boy, is taking on a new role: propaganda star.
Fuman was thrust into the spotlight this month when a teacher at his school in southern China shared a photo showing him covered in frost, the result of a 2.8-mile trek to school on a frigid day. The picture provoked a national conversation about the tens of millions of children who live without adequate food, clothing and shelter in the Chinese countryside.
Now the government is turning Fuman’s story into a rallying cry for a robust, resilient China.
- Photo
A Yunnan newspaper ran a headline on Jan. 10 reading, “Frost Boy, we’re coming to help you.”
A Communist Party website invited Fuman to the capital over the weekend and celebrated him as a patriotic hero. He waved a Chinese flag in Tiananmen Square, tried on riot gear at a public security bureau and swore an oath to be loyal to China and the ruling Communist Party.
“I’ll leave the mountains for sure,” he said during one appearance, according to news reports. “I’ll study hard and become a police officer.”
An said Fuman’s dream was to see Chairman Mao in Tiananmen Square, where his portrait still hangs.
Social media users circulated memes showing Fuman dressed as a police officer and holding a rifle. Some drew comparisons between the young boy and soldiers who endure harsh conditions protecting China’s border.
“My eyes welled up with tears,” one user wrote of Fuman’s visit on Weibo, a microblogging site.
Photo
After reports that Fuman aspired to law enforcement, China’s internet supplied memes to match.
China has a long tradition of lionizing figures who have suffered hardship but kept faith in their country and the Communist Party.
Many people were critical of the rush to idolize the boy, though, saying officials were using Fuman as a prop and neglecting the broader issue of rural poverty.
“A salute under the national flag is not going to solve anything,” wrote Zhishang Suping, the pen name of one commentator.
Others were concerned about the effect of the media hype on Fuman’s well-being.
“In this age of consumerism and amusing ourselves to death,” said a commentary published by China News Service, “it seems everything can be hyped — fortune, family, charity and even misery.”
Photo
Fuman donning riot gear at a public security bureau in Beijing on Saturday.CreditVisual China Group, via Getty Images
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
As I said before Chinese economy is transition into consumer driven economy contrary to the nay sayer
I think they entered a goldilock period now with low inflation and increasing wages coupled with improved world economy generating strong export
The modern Chinese economy was built based on its competitive advantage in manufacturing. But following of roughly 80% since 2010, it has experienced a consistent year-over-year deceleration due to an . In the past year, the slowed growth has finally stopped. In 2017, the Chinese economy experienced for the first time in seven years, but this acceleration is not because manufacturing is having a resurgence. In fact, many areas of manufacturing continue to fade in importance in China for a number of reasons.
Shutterstock
However, even as the death knell tolls for low-end manufacturing, this is ultimately a positive sign for China’s economic forecast in 2018 because it signals that China’s economy is growing up. The fact that gross domestic product (GDP) stabilized (even improved) despite manufacturing weakness means that China is able to stand on its own two feet based on services and consumption like a mature economy. The manufacturing crutch is being slowly pulled away, and China is still standing.
But before we can look ahead, it’s important to look at some of the key drivers that led to this acceleration. Traditionally, the foundation of the Chinese economy has been set in manufacturing. The government heavily subsidized the industry and . As such, it was attractive to foreign companies to invest in Chinese manufacturing.
However, manufacturing has been weakening in China for three primary reasons. First, changes in government policy have . Second, the while the , putting Chinese manufacturers at a pricing disadvantage on exports. Lastly, China is facing . In other words, other countries in the region, such as Malaysia and Bangladesh, are offering quality manufacturing alternatives at a cheaper price. In fact, even Chinese investors are investing in .
As manufacturers began to leave China in 2010, we saw an that lasted until 2016. During this same time period, however, the Chinese consumer was growing stronger, and we have now reached the tipping point where the strength of consumer is outpacing the deceleration caused by the manufacturing exodus. By 2015, the was responsible for more than 50% of China’s GDP, and in the past year, rose 0.1% -- from 6.7% in 2016 to 6.8% in 2017 -- which, for a country of China’s size, is quite significant.
The fact that China’s economy can show accelerated growth despite the continued weakening of the manufacturing industry is a strong positive indicator that it is ready to become a mature market. While the country is still far off from becoming a saturated market, like the U.S. or Europe, and slowing its growth to a comparable rate, the transition to a consumer-based economy proves that China has entered an important inflection point. It will be pivotal for U.S. companies to understand the current transition if they want to grow their presence and offering in Asia.
Entering 2018, the strength of the Chinese consumer will continue to outpace the dwindling manufacturing industry and propel the economy forward. China has experienced consistent wage growth while the cost of living has stayed relatively low, helped along by the . As a result, is up. Consumers are feeling confident, and positive consumer sentiment indicates healthy future spending.
Overall, while the manufacturing outlook in China is bleak, factors such as positive consumer sentiment, a strong yuan and wage growth indicate that the consumer has grown strong enough to support a maturing economy. While the Chinese economy used to be manufacturing-based, it is now consumer-based. As the economy in China continues to mature in the coming year, we can expect an overall positive outlook.
I think they entered a goldilock period now with low inflation and increasing wages coupled with improved world economy generating strong export
The modern Chinese economy was built based on its competitive advantage in manufacturing. But following of roughly 80% since 2010, it has experienced a consistent year-over-year deceleration due to an . In the past year, the slowed growth has finally stopped. In 2017, the Chinese economy experienced for the first time in seven years, but this acceleration is not because manufacturing is having a resurgence. In fact, many areas of manufacturing continue to fade in importance in China for a number of reasons.
Shutterstock
However, even as the death knell tolls for low-end manufacturing, this is ultimately a positive sign for China’s economic forecast in 2018 because it signals that China’s economy is growing up. The fact that gross domestic product (GDP) stabilized (even improved) despite manufacturing weakness means that China is able to stand on its own two feet based on services and consumption like a mature economy. The manufacturing crutch is being slowly pulled away, and China is still standing.
But before we can look ahead, it’s important to look at some of the key drivers that led to this acceleration. Traditionally, the foundation of the Chinese economy has been set in manufacturing. The government heavily subsidized the industry and . As such, it was attractive to foreign companies to invest in Chinese manufacturing.
However, manufacturing has been weakening in China for three primary reasons. First, changes in government policy have . Second, the while the , putting Chinese manufacturers at a pricing disadvantage on exports. Lastly, China is facing . In other words, other countries in the region, such as Malaysia and Bangladesh, are offering quality manufacturing alternatives at a cheaper price. In fact, even Chinese investors are investing in .
As manufacturers began to leave China in 2010, we saw an that lasted until 2016. During this same time period, however, the Chinese consumer was growing stronger, and we have now reached the tipping point where the strength of consumer is outpacing the deceleration caused by the manufacturing exodus. By 2015, the was responsible for more than 50% of China’s GDP, and in the past year, rose 0.1% -- from 6.7% in 2016 to 6.8% in 2017 -- which, for a country of China’s size, is quite significant.
The fact that China’s economy can show accelerated growth despite the continued weakening of the manufacturing industry is a strong positive indicator that it is ready to become a mature market. While the country is still far off from becoming a saturated market, like the U.S. or Europe, and slowing its growth to a comparable rate, the transition to a consumer-based economy proves that China has entered an important inflection point. It will be pivotal for U.S. companies to understand the current transition if they want to grow their presence and offering in Asia.
Entering 2018, the strength of the Chinese consumer will continue to outpace the dwindling manufacturing industry and propel the economy forward. China has experienced consistent wage growth while the cost of living has stayed relatively low, helped along by the . As a result, is up. Consumers are feeling confident, and positive consumer sentiment indicates healthy future spending.
Overall, while the manufacturing outlook in China is bleak, factors such as positive consumer sentiment, a strong yuan and wage growth indicate that the consumer has grown strong enough to support a maturing economy. While the Chinese economy used to be manufacturing-based, it is now consumer-based. As the economy in China continues to mature in the coming year, we can expect an overall positive outlook.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
A few extreme examples prove nothing. For every Bill Gates, there are probably 10 Rupert Murdocks or other predatory rich only interested in using their wealth to gain influence, power and more wealth.
Even philanthropy isn’t truly selfless. If someone was only interested in giving away money to help others, why do they all go to such lengths to advertise the act?
It’s those who give generously but who’s works are only revealed after they have passed that are the real selfless souls, like George Michael, and they are far fewer than your typical publicity mad western philanthropist.
When you have more money than you could possibly spend in a thousand lifetimes, and have bought everything money could buy, it’s the things you cannot just write a cheque for that you tend to obsess about. Philanthropy is a means to achieve those ends, be it public adoralation, political office or the affections or that special someone who isn’t impressed by money etc.
The west has been rich longer than China, so it’s rich has had time to evolve more developed sensibilities about what to do with their outrageous wealth. The snobbishness about the Chinese rich is just the same recycled lines used to put down self made millionaires and billionaires by those who inherited their wealth - old money vs new money.
They can consistently getting away with it because western governments actively aid and abet them by resisting Chinese extradition demands no matter the evidence.
The recent case of Guo wengui is a classic example.
After decades of questionable if not outright criminal dealings and activities that allowed him to amass his wealth, and as soon as Interpol issued an arrest warrant for him for his shadowy past dealings, he flees to the US, trash talks about China to the eager western ‘free press’ and magically transformed his economic crimes into political ones in a bit to resist the Interpol arrest warrant.
Oh, he may face justice eventually, but not before the Americans get to bleed him dry or all his ill gotten gains through legal fees, obligatory political ‘donations’ and the like. As has happened to others like him in the past.
Even philanthropy isn’t truly selfless. If someone was only interested in giving away money to help others, why do they all go to such lengths to advertise the act?
It’s those who give generously but who’s works are only revealed after they have passed that are the real selfless souls, like George Michael, and they are far fewer than your typical publicity mad western philanthropist.
When you have more money than you could possibly spend in a thousand lifetimes, and have bought everything money could buy, it’s the things you cannot just write a cheque for that you tend to obsess about. Philanthropy is a means to achieve those ends, be it public adoralation, political office or the affections or that special someone who isn’t impressed by money etc.
The west has been rich longer than China, so it’s rich has had time to evolve more developed sensibilities about what to do with their outrageous wealth. The snobbishness about the Chinese rich is just the same recycled lines used to put down self made millionaires and billionaires by those who inherited their wealth - old money vs new money.
They can consistently getting away with it because western governments actively aid and abet them by resisting Chinese extradition demands no matter the evidence.
The recent case of Guo wengui is a classic example.
After decades of questionable if not outright criminal dealings and activities that allowed him to amass his wealth, and as soon as Interpol issued an arrest warrant for him for his shadowy past dealings, he flees to the US, trash talks about China to the eager western ‘free press’ and magically transformed his economic crimes into political ones in a bit to resist the Interpol arrest warrant.
Oh, he may face justice eventually, but not before the Americans get to bleed him dry or all his ill gotten gains through legal fees, obligatory political ‘donations’ and the like. As has happened to others like him in the past.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
A few extreme examples prove nothing. For every Bill Gates, there are probably 10 Rupert Murdocks or other predatory rich only interested in using their wealth to gain influence, power and more wealth.
Even philanthropy isn’t truly selfless. If someone was only interested in giving away money to help others, why do they all go to such lengths to advertise the act?
It’s those who give generously but who’s works are only revealed after they have passed that are the real selfless souls, like George Michael, and they are far fewer than your typical publicity mad western philanthropist.
When you have more money than you could possibly spend in a thousand lifetimes, and have bought everything money could buy, it’s the things you cannot just write a cheque for that you tend to obsess about. Philanthropy is a means to achieve those ends, be it public adoralation, political office or the affections or that special someone who isn’t impressed by money etc.
The west has been rich longer than China, so it’s rich has had time to evolve more developed sensibilities about what to do with their outrageous wealth. The snobbishness about the Chinese rich is just the same recycled lines used to put down self made millionaires and billionaires by those who inherited their wealth - old money vs new money.
They can consistently getting away with it because western governments actively aid and abet them by resisting Chinese extradition demands no matter the evidence.
The recent case of Guo wengui is a classic example.
After decades of questionable if not outright criminal dealings and activities that allowed him to amass his wealth, and as soon as Interpol issued an arrest warrant for him for his shadowy past dealings, he flees to the US, trash talks about China to the eager western ‘free press’ and magically transformed his economic crimes into political ones in a bit to resist the Interpol arrest warrant.
Oh, he may face justice eventually, but not before the Americans get to bleed him dry or all his ill gotten gains through legal fees, obligatory political ‘donations’ and the like. As has happened to others like him in the past.
Even philanthropy isn’t truly selfless. If someone was only interested in giving away money to help others, why do they all go to such lengths to advertise the act?
It’s those who give generously but who’s works are only revealed after they have passed that are the real selfless souls, like George Michael, and they are far fewer than your typical publicity mad western philanthropist.
When you have more money than you could possibly spend in a thousand lifetimes, and have bought everything money could buy, it’s the things you cannot just write a cheque for that you tend to obsess about. Philanthropy is a means to achieve those ends, be it public adoralation, political office or the affections or that special someone who isn’t impressed by money etc.
The west has been rich longer than China, so it’s rich has had time to evolve more developed sensibilities about what to do with their outrageous wealth. The snobbishness about the Chinese rich is just the same recycled lines used to put down self made millionaires and billionaires by those who inherited their wealth - old money vs new money.
They can consistently getting away with it because western governments actively aid and abet them by resisting Chinese extradition demands no matter the evidence.
The recent case of Guo wengui is a classic example.
After decades of questionable if not outright criminal dealings and activities that allowed him to amass his wealth, and as soon as Interpol issued an arrest warrant for him for his shadowy past dealings, he flees to the US, trash talks about China to the eager western ‘free press’ and magically transformed his economic crimes into political ones in a bit to resist the Interpol arrest warrant.
Oh, he may face justice eventually, but not before the Americans get to bleed him dry or all his ill gotten gains through legal fees, obligatory political ‘donations’ and the like. As has happened to others like him in the past.
I don't understand this.
What is the unit of the second number?
Anyway, example a high speed railway investment:
one million personuse the line in each year, each spend 2 hours on it.
Each of them has 20 youan hourly wage.
Means the lost sallary due to transport is 40 million.
So, there is a new high speed line there, and the cost of it is say 500 million yuan.
The usefull life of the investment is 30 years, and say the company has to pay back 1000 million yuan,
So, in each year the business has to pay back 33 million to the bank/investors.
If the railway cut back the transport time to half, then the saving will be 20 million youan for the comuters.
It ultimatedly means that the worth of the line is not 500 million, but only 2/3 of it.
Who will bear this loss?
It will be the investor, or the population of the country?
It will be paid by decreased consumption , or by decreased wealth of the investors?
Chau Chak Wing whose property development company Kingold in Guangzhou donated 20 million AUD to the construction of the Dr.Chau Chak BLD at the University of Technology Sydney and another 15 million towards the building of a museum at the University of Sydney. These universities aren’t exactly short of funds, the amount of mainland students that contribute to it’s coffers is unbelievable.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Nugroho meant that all technology starts out poor or underachieving. Maybe at first, the robot created would cost $1000 but only be capable of $500 of work before it broke down. Without further investment, the company cannot make any sales and has no more money to develop. The robot design will fail. But with SOEs investing in it (or buying it directly), what at first may appear to be a poor or "inefficient" investment, the technology will have the finances to mature and eventually make $1000 robots that can perform $1000, $10,000, $100,000, etc... worth of work. Of course, it is not the "efficient" private business owner's concern nor his prerogative to ever fund such a robot venture at his own expense; he needs to grow his own business. But with the "loans" and "inefficiency" of the SOE, that robotics company may be able to advance, prosper, and become a technological powerhouse bolstering the nation.
Your example of the rail has no relevancy and no point, though in a vacuum, it is true. If someone were to build an expensive rail that did not develop any region, and could not save travelers enough time to balance the cost of the project throughout its entire useful life, then it is a poorly planned rail project and should not have been undertaken. Nobody is arguing to do that and there are no instances in China's history of such a from-nowhere-through-nowhere-to-nowhere project, to the best of my knowledge. When China invests in rails, people ride them; it saves travelers incredible amounts of time, speeds up business, and most of all, it leads to vertical development of rural/poor areas. The vast trickle-down positive effects are nearly impossible to quantify. So I don't understand at all why you brought up this irrelevant example, unless of course, you meant to point out that ticket earnings from recently inaugurated lines have yet to balance their construction costs, which would be an absolutely ridiculous thing to even mention.