exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Jessiedog said:It's already happening.
Woof
I know, and sadly Chinas non-holistic developmental curve (at an extraordinary pace at that) is just making something which is already bad, worse.
Jessiedog said:It's already happening.
Woof
Yeah!exosculate said:I know, and sadly Chinas non-holistic developmental curve (at an extraordinary pace at that) is just making something which is already bad, worse.
The appeal court has upheld Ching's five year sentence - without having a hearing.
Medical parole is the only chance now - he's already been in jail nearly two years.
Woof
Just a month and a half to go here, then it's back to reality.
It makes me feel kind of sad, all told.
Yeah back to the UK to study for a year... Then we'll see what happens.
4th June 1989 - 4th June 2008.
Nineteen years.
Never forget!
Reminds me of my return to UK to study after nine years in bangkok. It was a very very sobering situation i found myself in! It didn't help that the summer i returned to had been cancelled, and the trains were running at miniscule speeds for months while they investigate hairline cracks on the rails. Or something like that.
Good luck mate! Incidentally, i half went back to england to see how i'd feel about no longer living in thailand, and in the end just could not wait to get back here to continue my life...
I'm late to this thread - sorry if I've missed responses to this on the way.If they are pubbing and e'ing, i'd call that western behaviour. Unless we where wholly misinformed about the Mao years, I doubt they have always been like that. But as you say and in my shame the only Chinese i have spoken to are across a take away counter.
99%, yes out of the ether, however a country that has 90million under the poverty line that it sets at 81 US dollars a year. Poverty line
and articles from this site Working conditions would make it very high
The simplified reason for all the articles being made in China is that the labour costs are, challenged only by India, the lowest in the world and the workers rights, again challenged by India, are the worst in the world.
China is without doubt the next superpower, sucking up all available resources, shoving up prices of fuel and steel. Yet it is still a mystery with huge parts of the country closed to western eyes. This is what makes it such an enigma.
China's fast economic development, which stands at 9.4 percent during 1978 and 2004, has helped reduced the country's poor population dramatically.
According to Chinese statistics, the population in abject poverty was reduced from 250 million to 26 million during 1978 and 2004. The ratio of the very poor to the total rural population has been reduced from 30.7 percent to 3.1 percent.
http://english.people.com.cn/200505/28/eng20050528_187219.html
The most commonly used threshold of low income is a household income that is 60% or less of the average (median) household income in that year. For a discussion of why this is the most commonly used threshold, see the page on choices of low income thresholds. The latest year for which data is available is 2005/06. In that year, the 60% threshold was worth £108 per week for single adult with no dependent children; £186 per week for a couple with no dependent children; £182 per week for a single adult with two children under the age of 14; and £260 per week for a couple with two children under the age of 14. These sums of money are measured after income tax, council tax and housing costs have been deducted, where housing costs include rents, mortgage interest (but not the repayment of principal), buildings insurance and water charges. They therefore represent what the household has available to spend on everything else it needs, from food and heating to travel and entertainment.
In 2005/06, almost 13 million people in the UK were living in households below this low income threshold. This is around a fifth (22%) of the population.
This 13 million figure is an increase of ¾ million compared with the previous year, 2004/05. It follows six uninterrupted years of decreases from 1998/1999 to 2004/05 and is the first increase since 1996/97.
The number of people on low incomes is still lower than it was during the early 1990s but much greater than in the early 1980s.
Using a lower threshold of 50% of median income (rather than 60%), the pattern is similar: an increase in 2005/06 following decreases throughout the previous eight years. The decreases using this threshold suggests that the progress over the eight years to 2004/05 was not limited to simply "some people being moved from just below the 60% of median income threshold to just above it"; rather, there was also progress lower down the income distribution.
Using a still lower threshold of 40% of median income, however, the pattern is rather different: unchanged levels throughout the last decade. In other words, there has been no reduction in the numbers of very poor people.
http://www.poverty.org.uk/01/index.shtml
They're hardly comparable anyway - living costs and median incomes are so different. The point is that even 90 million in poverty is not a large percentage of the 1.3 billion population - it's just an impressively big sounding number.Apart from anything else (of which there is much) there's a disparity in the sources there don't you think? You use a popular media site to get a couple of figures for China, and a brilliantly critical organisation to obtain some complex data on poverty in Britain.
ymu said:Meanwhile the UK and the US are amongst the richest countries in the world, yet have large areas which are at third world poverty levels. And their income gaps are widening, whilst China's is decreasing.
Yes - it is a massive income gap, largely because of the large numbers of rural poor rather than a particularly rich elite. China has approx 8% of the world's poorest, but 20% of the world's population. For incomes at the world median, China has around 35% of the world total - but very very few at the super-rich end of the scale.There's a vast income gap in China and it's getting wider - those figures you've quoted are from a Chinese government mouthpiece and as such are next to useless, but even the same source admits to an income gap.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200412/16/eng20041216_167590.html
Joseph Stiglitz said:China’s Roadmap, by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Project Syndicate: China is about to adopt its 11th five-year plan, setting the stage for the continuation of probably the most remarkable economic transformation in history, while improving the well-being of almost a quarter of the world’s population. ... Part of the key to China’s long-run success has been its almost unique combination of pragmatism and vision. While much of the rest of the developing world, following the Washington Consensus, has been directed at a quixotic quest for higher GDP, China has once again made clear that it seeks sustainable and more equitable increases in real living standards. China realizes that it has entered a phase of economic growth that is imposing enormous – and unsustainable – demands on the environment. ... That is why the new five-year plan places great emphasis on the environment.
Even many of the more backward parts of China have been growing at a pace that would be a marvel, were it not for the fact that other parts of the country are growing even more rapidly. While this has reduced poverty, inequality has been increasing, with growing disparities between cities and rural areas, and between coastal regions and the interior. ... China’s 11th five-year plan attacks the problem head-on. The government has for several years talked about a more harmonious society, and the plan describes ambitious programs for achieving this.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/04/stiglitz_chinas.html
Meanwhile the UK and the US are amongst the richest countries in the world, yet have large areas which are at third world poverty levels. And their income gaps are widening, whilst China's is decreasing.
I was referring to the graph, which quite clearly shows part of the US and European populations living on incomes in the bottom 1% of world incomes. We do have people living in that sort of poverty, even if they're not as numerous or even visible to the majority enjoying the "Western" lifestyle. It also shows that the proceeds of economic growth in China has been much more equally divided than in the West, despite the large numbers still in poverty.Sorry, but this is complete rubbish. Even living in a council flat on benefits affords a far better standard of living than the poor in China can possibly afford.
The only problem in the UK is the poverty of ideas. You go into poor areas here, and people look so damned unhealthy, so moribund. But in pure stuff, they are still way ahead of the poor in China, I'm afraid.
bumpety bumpety bump.
i guess it's all gone a bit quiet on the China front these days
bumpety bumpety bump.
i guess it's all gone a bit quiet on the China front these days
China's crisis could be worse than America's
Nearly 30 million migrants have lost their jobs. The exact number of factory closures is unclear, but in Guangdong we learn that 20,000 factories closed in the last three months of 2008, with the loss of two million jobs. No large economy is experiencing such an abrupt slowdown, and because China is bigger and a lot poorer, the crisis is in many ways worse than even in the U.S. The Chinese economy hit zero growth in real terms, in the final quarter of 2008, from a rate of 10 percent a year ago.
http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/697/?tpid=2
May you live in interesting times.
Woof