I tend to discount anything written by "economists" and "economic experts" because if they were all so prescient, none of them would have to work for a living and we'd never hear anything from them.
One thing all of these folks tend to forget: the Chinese Commuinist government merely allowed people to have the illusion of economic freedom in the hopes of avoiding a Soviet-style meltdown. The idea is that if people are seduced by material wealth, they will forget they have political rights, and the party will remain in power.
What they are discounting is human nature ("There is no such thing as human nature" -- Chairman Mao). Once people begin to accumulate wealth and property, they tend to expect (and fight for) political rights in order to safeguard that wealth and property. The two (economic and individual rights) cannot be seperated.
Now, of course, the Commies expect this sort of thing to happen in a vacuum, that they will be able to keep the lid on the whole thing, which is a fallacy. In the modern world, it is now easier to communicate than ever before. With the introduction of the PC,internet, cell phones, blackberries, cable and satellite television, the ability to begin and sustain a mass movement of like-minded individuals now truly exists for the first time in history.
The communist government cannot keep the lid on things this time like they did in Tianemmen Square.
Anyone who will stand up for individual rights in China is now capable of reaching a larger audience than ever before. It is now easier to broadcast that message not only across China, but around the planet than ever before. The ability to foment and disseminate anti-government information grows by leaps and bounds on an almost daily basis. The ability to co-ordinate information and communications grows just as rapidly.
I feel sorry for the Commies when a sizable number of their wage slaves wake up and realize just what kind of power they actually possess.
And when that happens we can stop talking about China the economic powerhouse.
"I tend to discount anything written by "economists" and "economic experts" because if they were all so prescient, none of them would have to work for a living and we'd never hear anything from them."
Actually, the thing that's disturbing to me is that _economists_ rarely write this sort of thing, and the "economic experts" -- at least those whose opinions grace magazines, newspapers and even television -- are rarely _economists_. They are often, like Mr. Kane, business or finance types, but those are not economists. What actual _economists_ say is usually ignored outright, or at least rarely gets any publicity.
Mr. Kane, by the way, has degrees in "politics and history" and "Irish history."