Senior Victorian
I shouldn't worry too much about your "naive" outlook - nor about embarking upon an intensive course of study in order to enable you to comment on China.

Expat Journo is part of a claque who only ever comment on OLO when one of Arthur's articles appear. The name appears somewhat of a misnomer also, as on previous posts he has said he flies into China often - which he would not need to do if he were actually a journalist in this country. His researching skills are also a little suspect as his Arthus Thomas Cheering Squad once "unmasked" me as male, Chinese, and a Communist spy - when a simple click on my profile button would have shown the absurdity of this.

My constant objection to Thomas's articles is that they are not objective. Not one of his pieces has ever acknowledged the progress made, the lasting changes, the growing involvement within China, nor the fact that even the CCP descibes its direction these days as more socialist than communist but (a now famous catch-phrase here) "with Chinese characteristics".

I just skimmed over a couple of articles he wrote while I was away in England and see that, in one of them, he predicted that the the moves to combat pollution in Beijing would not last once the Olympics were over. Time has proved he was wrong on that, so perhaps others of his doomsday prognostications should, as you have so rightly done, be weighed in a more balanced manner.

I personally wouldn't deal with the Human Rights abusing
"Butchers of Beijing" period and really do think that if any Australian administration treated our mob like they treat theirs that we wld rise up and put them to the sword.

Still, I do respect their astuteness in business and their magnificent trading ex-pat community, mayhaps the largest and most sophisticated in the world.

It is not a complicated equation. They produce with high tech machines and human beings held in nigh on slave conditions and sell at int $ price whilst paying out in peanuts.

They buy our raw materials and say in the case of garments, cut it with the recylcled gutter waste of the 3rd world, fabricate and sell back to 1st world economies at a profit ration of at least 5 to 1.

They have a verifiable sky scraper, full of n.american treasury bonds, a situation about which I doubt will be tolerated indefinately.

As for growth, I doubt very much that it is a question of growth at any cost, but rather they will produce dwelling/fabrication zones of production relative to potential market sales.

Thus, how much the abusers continue to buy of our raw materials is intimately connected with how much of their 2nd rate produce that "we" in the 1st world continue to buy.

Q.And who wants 2nd rate "slave" shop produce anyway?
A. The majority poor/working class people of the 1st world who can't afford anything else.

But, courtesy of howard et al, everything has been over inflated and services have been slashed to boost surplus to pay for their illegal wars and other fossil fuel procurement programs and now the poor and wking class have no money to shop.

Green tech must b introduced to unburden us from the fossil fuel bill that we may have savings and surplus to shop. The challenge of course is that this is a bastardised $ demucracy and the polluters won't go without an expensive fight.

We used to go thru a 15kg gas bottle at a cost of $AU10 per fortnight here in Indo pretty much on just heating water.

Now, our >$AU500 SOLAR system CRANKS and givs us piping hot water 24hr non stop and it costs zip. Coz of the humidity, I bathe on avg 3 times a day too and we luv to play in the water in a very wasteful manner.
[CONSUME LESS, CONSUME LESS and puts a brick in the dunny ;-)]

Note, the Indos have got so much water that they throw it on the street at the end of the day just to settle the dust. Still, the rain is coming later and more violently when it does. Req water engineers pls.

A whole housing boom in Oz. A wicked solar institute and those <snip> howard et al trashed and p!ssed on it, likely to eliminate competition and elicit fat donations from the fossil fuel industry.

We must go beyond the design of the eco house at the Perth zoo and relearn the knowledge of the ancients and build dwellings that harness the natural forces of gravity, wind, sun and rain and our household organic waste must go bak to producing food and CO2 consuming GreenerY.

*!GGGGRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNN!*

So much time and energy wasted. .. The housing industry must be re-directed and regulated in the national interest.

...Adam...

Romany

Dear oh dear, you do manage to get your unmentionables into a tensioned entanglement that appears to restrict the blood circulation to the reasoning and objectivity departments. You may also need a shoulder brace to support all those chips.

You write as an idealist with an emotional bias countering criticism of China, without presenting hard evidence to back up your argument, after admitting to a lack of in depth knowledge of the subject.

You do not test the evidence, nor do you attempt to write a definitive article on China for peer review.

Arthur and others, myself included, present China in a global perspective and its potential to negatively impact on environmental and socio-economic issues in Australia and other countries.

Why follow Beijing's line and blame others for China's problems?

Everyone else is wrong and you are right?

Are all the media wrong?

Are the studies produced by World Bank, IMF, Asian Development Bank, OECD, UN, Ernst and Young, Deloites to name only a few, also biased?

How about the information in the industrial reviews, individual company returns, import and export data etc.?

I directed Senior Victorian to a number of information sources to provide a greater understanding of the subject. Your advice to disregard a suggestion to expand one's knowledge appears to border on irresponsibility or even arrogance.

Your reference to Arthur's earlier input on Beijing pollution appears more information regurgitation than research. China's steel and metals industries were in decline pre 2008 Olympics. Closures and production cuts seriously reduced emissions from these industries and reduction in downline power demand is reducing emissions further, especially around Beijing. Beijingers may have to thank an economic crisis for improved air quality.

You also failed to mention serious cutbacks to Beijing's atmospheric monitoring following the Olympics.

Identify inaccuracies in author's articles and others comments, but don't be juvenile and respond to such material as negative because you are ill informed.

Get real. Look at the whole picture and don't be selective in "facts" that only suit your views. Goodness, I see you have been to England too.

Expat China Journo

Expat Journo

I consider that you, yourself, are being somewhat jejune in your latest response. “Everyone else is wrong and you are right?” Piffle! When have I ever suggested this? “ Right” in what context? In saying that Arthurs’s articles are consistently one-sided? A couple of other posters have conceded that his viewpoint might not be representative of the whole picture - so no, I am not alone in feeling this. "Right" in what I say about China? All I’ve ever said is that a completely negative viewpoint is not a well-rounded one.

And who is the “everyone” to whom you allude? There are as many shiny, happy pictures of the Chinese situation as there are popularist, fear incitements. I advocate, as I have always done, a receptive mind which can negotiate a channel between the two.

“Are all the media wrong”? Silly person! Some of the media are, some of them aren’t. Some are honest and insightful, some are lazy and pander to the line set down by their particular publication. I am surprised that, as a professed media person, you were unaware of this? Are you, perhaps, a trifle ingenuous?

“Your advice to disregard a suggestion to expand one's knowledge appears to border on irresponsibility or even arrogance”. Suggestions concerning the expansion of knowledge are, in fact, my stock in trade. I would be most grateful if you could point to any occasion where I have, as you suggested, advocated deliberate ignorance? It is, rather, the fostering of ignorance which I abhor and, in defiance of which, I usually advise people not to accept one-sided points of view.

“Identify inaccuracies” etc? I’ve done this before. I was disregarded.

In any case, my bone of contention is not inaccuracies of fact as much as inaccuracies of representation. I was sure I had made this perfectly clear? If not, please don’t hesitate to show me exactly where the confusion as to my motives has crept in as I am appalled I should have given the impression which prompted your response