First, a little background information.
I've been living in China for a few years now and I've had a few of these ideas rattling around in my head for awhile. It's worth mentioning that China features "special economic zones" such as Shanghai, parts of Hainan and others, where more freedom is allowed. The majority of the country, including the area where I live, however, is not privy to these slight benefits.
I'm going to list 4 observations I have drawn from China, and the lessons I feel we can learn from them. I tried to make them all relate to things that you could only draw on by actually living in China, instead of facts anyone could look up on the internet.
Of course, all questions and comments are welcome.
Observation #1: Standardized Testing
As a child in China, very little is more important than school. Indeed, children know little else. Schools have few holidays and when they do occur, children are loaded down with enough homework to consume 6-8 hours of every day off; that's just public school. It is not uncommon for a Chinese child as young as 5 to have 2 hours of additional classes after public school every day. Weekends are spent trying to finish your homework in the periods between your 4-6 hours of supplemental classes. Failing a test is the most disastrous thing which can happen to a young Chinese student. Anything less than 100% is a failure. 90% or less is considered absolutely disastrous.
The reason for this is quite simple. Public schools are separated based on the test scores of the students who are allowed to enter. Get good scores as a child? You get into a good Middle School. Get good scores in Middle School? Get into a good High School. Get good scores in your High School? Get into a good University. Get good scores in your University? Get a well paying government job.
This is the formula. By excluding those who, from a young age are not able to suck up as much government propaganda (schooling) as others, the state effectively insures that only those who have demonstrated an ability to recite statist propaganda will get good jobs, and into positions of influence.
The crux of this statist edifice is the standardized test. By repeatedly testing students according to one universal set of standards, the state effects almost total control over every teacher and student in the country.
As a teacher, what if you want to teach your students about X? Better make sure X will be on the standardized test; if it's not, your students will do poorly on the test, which means they'll get into lousy schools. As a student, want to study X? Better make sure it'll be on the standardized test; if it's not, you'll do worse on the test, which means you'll get into a lousy school.
Standardized tests force teachers to teach and students to study, exactly what the state deems appropriate.
The Lesson (a):
Standardized tests work for the state because they are decrees that only the knowledge which the state deems important shall be learnt, upon penalty of bad grades, bad schools and then bad careers. This is why decentralization, even of a public school system would be a serious blow, because it would rob the state of the opportunity to dictate to the individual student what is important to learn and to the individual teacher, what is important to teach.
If a decentralized public system would be a serious blow to the state, then fully privatized education would surely be its death knell. The information taught to students would largely be focused on preparing them for jobs in the free market. Preparing them for a life of being forced to serve the interests of others in order to make a living. Preparing them for a life where all action is voluntary. The schools which would do this the best, would receive more money and more students.
(b)
Another point of interest is why degrees become more and more important, as government grows in a country. China is no exception. If you don't have a degree, you can't get a high paying job. Period.
Degrees represent a certificate of propaganda mastery. It shows that you have shown at least some sort of ability to inhale propaganda at a reasonably advanced level. This is important in a statist society where jobs rarely reflect one's ability. Intellectuals would hate to admit that perhaps the free market would have no use for their skills. They need the state to artificially manufacture permanent and safe jobs for them.
In a free market, we have seen, and would see, less use for degrees. More emphasis would be placed on the ability, creativity and both the physical and intellectual vigor of the individual. Less people would be educated on the sexual habits of the anteater, because consumers have very little desire for this type of information. More people would be forced to consider careers which there was a real market for instead of an artificial statist market.
Observation #2: A modern day guild system
"I don't want to join the communist party; but I'll never get to teach at a good school if I don't."
These were the first words out of the mouth of a Chinese friend of mine, when I asked her why she wanted to join the Communist party. The unfortunate fact of the matter is, as she informed me, was that while capitalism has created a wealth of new jobs in China, the best of these jobs are not necessarily available to everyone.
The process is simple, but effective. If you want to get into the Communist party, there needs to be a background check. They need to make sure you haven't been buying any taboo books, been on any taboo websites, or doing anything in general that the government doesn't like. Provided you have a good background, you are then set up to do certain tasks, such as public service, listening to pro government speeches, etc. If you accomplish this, the real fun begins. Every month (or perhaps every 3) you have to write a paper and submit it to the party. it has to include how your thoughts have progressed, why you want to join the party, what you think you can do for the party, and how you think you can improve yourself. After a year or more of this, you can finally be accepted as a low level, card carrying communist party member.
This means that better government jobs are now open to you, as well as many highly regulated private jobs. (Which is pretty much all of them) It's worth mentioning that almost all large businesses in China operate in some form of partnership with the government so unless you're a communist party member, the chances of an average Chinese citizen getting even an above average job without being in the party is slim.
The Lesson:
Whether it's requiring entry to a political party, union, or a state granted license, government loves restrictive entry. You keep your friends in and your enemies out, and make a tidy profit thanks to less competition.
So the next time someone proposes required licenses for profession X, tell them China is way ahead of them, it already has a universal license for all professions - all professions above a certain pay grade anyways.
Observation #3: The Nature of Propaganda
Which is the most oppressive country in the world right now? Probably North Korea. It's no coincidence that they describe themselves as "The friendliest nation on earth". It's also no coincidence that the leader of this oppressive state is referred to as the "dear leader".
Can you imagine Obama trying to label the US as the "friendliest nation on earth"? Not even at the height of his popularity would this fly - and yet, the label seems to be more accurate when applied to the US than to North Korea. Certainly Americans have nothing to be proud of when it comes to their murderous and oppressive state, but certainly their state is much less so than North Korea. So why is the label applied to the least appropriate one?
Why is the national bank of China called "The People's Bank of China" and the currency "The People's Currency". Why is the army not called the Chinese Army, but instead "The People's Liberation Army"?
Again, we cannot imagine these labels being attached to similar Western institutions even though this would be comparatively more appropriate.
Why was it only when America started to intervene in world affairs that the "Dept of War" was renamed "The Department of Defense"? Is there something about the nature of statist propaganda that actually ensures the more vehemently something is stated, the more the opposite is true?
Quite simply, yes.
This is more than just the cliched "ahhhh that's just politicians talking, we know they're a bunch of liars" type of dialog, this is something which can actually be established as a universal truth; a political law, if you will.
The stronger government insists something is true; the stronger the opposite is true.
This is why Obama has done more to further Bush's agenda than Bush himself, because he so vehemently promised change.
This is why Bush proclaimed so loudly that he was 'saving the free market'; because he was destroying it.
This is why it is always communist parties who claim themselves "People's Revolutionaries", because their ideas are least suited for the common man.
This is why Presidents of old were slower to destroy the free market, because they made no grandiose statements about helping, aiding, saving, changing, altering, abolishing or regulating it. This is why they didn't implement as many welfare programs, because there was no talk about saving the poor.
I could go on, and on. So why is this the case? Why don't we see this in the free market? Why doesn't Apple claim it has the cheapest computers? Why don't we see McDonald's ads claiming it has the healthiest food on the planet?
Consider this. If you intend to punch me, you will not need much of an excuse. Perhaps you can pass it off as a joke. If you intend to assault me however, you're going to need a much larger excuse. Perhaps I stole your watch. If you intend to kill me, you're going to need an even larger excuse, perhaps I was about to murder your child!
The larger the violation of rights is, the larger lie I need to manufacture to oppose it. This is why extremely limited governments never had the amount of propaganda we have from our politicians today, because the violation of rights was also correspondingly small. Today, statist propaganda of every shape and size abounds - because violations of rights abound with equal severity and frequency.
Observation #4: The nature of bureaucrats and bureaucracy
Name: _______ Passport Number: ________ Address: ________
I had filled this same information literally scores of times since entering China. Now, coming back from Hong Kong I had to do it again. At the bottom of the page, after answering the same questions which are at the top of every form you will ever have the pleasure of filling out in China, was a single question question:
"Have you recently experienced any of these H1N1 related symptoms, (which included coughing and sneezing) been diagnosed with H1N1 in the past, or suspect you may have H1N1 now?"
I almost laughed out loud. I had just wasted 5 minutes of my time filling out a form, the only purpose of which was to ask me whether or not I was presently suffering from H1N1.
When I was done with the form, I placed it into the hands of a police officer on top of hundreds of identical papers, all stating that no, the author of the form was sure that he or she did not have H1N1. Not that it would have mattered if you did. The officer in charge didn't even look at any of the papers as we passed by.
"I need what?!" was my incredulous reaction upon hearing the documents I would need in order to receive my residence permit. Apparently, because I had previously lived in a difference place in China, I needed a paper stating that I had lived there (in addition to the documents I first filled out when coming to China which stated that I was living there). In other words, I needed a paper from a company I hadn't worked for, for two months, stating that two months I ago, I lived in an apartment at location X; and I needed this paper in order to get another form telling the police that I was living, and had been living for two months, in a new apartment in area Y.
How did I solve this problem?
I first naively thought that I could get this mythical paper, if I was persistent enough. 10 hours, 12 taxi rides, numerous government and local police offices later, I was slightly disillusioned and still, form-less.
I decided I would resort to the time honored art of bribing my way out. No good, I was told by a friend. Apparently, the Chinese government has been cracking down on bribes; you can only bribe a police officer if you know them personally, otherwise, they're too scared to take your money. In the end, I did get my form. How? By calling enough police officers until I found one of them who didn't know about the rule which I had been trying to avoid this whole time.
So why do these regulations exist, not just in China, but everywhere? And just as importantly, why have we seen a universal trend of expansion in regulations?
Look at the life of a single one of these regulatory forms. First, it is passed to people who collect them. Then, there need to be people who sort them, and people who analyze them. There need to be people who enforce the regulations, people who decide how to enforce them and people who decide what needs enforcing. All these people need to be first trained and then organized. This process needs to be repeated for every city, municipality, province and state in the country. There need to be multiple tiers of these people; the grunt workers, their bosses, their bosses bosses, etc all the way back to the State Department of X and then The Federal Department of X. In other words, even one regulation can easily involve thousands of people. And so we come to the grand realization.
Thousands of bureaucrats have jobs solely based on these forms, procedures and regulations. Thousands of people who have never been trained to get a job in the free market. Thousands of people who have never had to do any real work in their lives. Thousands of people, who have lived off of productive people their whole lives.
Now, what are the chances that they're going to give this up, to go into a world they've never been trained for, where they'll be judged based on whether or not people actually need their services?
This is the reason why government is always as big as it can possibly be, why true government shrinkage has never occurred in America and why limited government can never work.
The Chinese economy has not become free market oriented for the benefit of the people! It has become more free market oriented because the government got wise to the fact that there is a lot more milk for them, when they feed their cattle better. This is not to say that reforms have not benefited the average
Chinese citizen, far from it. But the goal of free market reforms has always been more tax dollars and higher salaries for government workers.
If real freedom had been the goal, we would have also seen an expansion in civil liberties parallel to the expansion in economic freedom. Yet, this has not occurred, to any measurable extent. How much money would the average bureaucrat make by allowing protests? Unblocking youtube and other websites? Allowing religious freedom? Nothing, so it has not happened and probably will never happen in the foreseeable future.
Once you allow government in, you create a permanent class of people accustomed to a parasitic life, and they will never give up power voluntarily.
Once you start the process of limited government, you have already lost the battle. People in power and control will always seek more power and control, those in the limited government will look to create more government. Once more government is created, it is impossible to go back. More government will be piled onto the previous government and the process will continue, unable to be stopped.
Government is an ever expanding virus for which there is no cure.
When you give people the ability to live on the dollars of others they will quickly find themselves unable to make a living else wise. When you give people power over others, be it petty or grand, you can be sure they will never relinquish this power willingly. When you create a system whereby a certain elite group of people can redistribute favors to the masses and then allow anyone access to this power, you ensure that only forked tongued would-be demagogues shall occupy it.
Excellent!
The exact same can pretty much be said of Vietnam. Spent a month there with a guide. Learnt a whole lot from a economic / political philosophical perspective.
Wonderful essay!
Perfect. Well said.
This is basically the story of my education, starting from public schools, all the way to the college level as a mathematical economics major.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Seph: First, a little background information. I've been living in China for a few years now and I've had a few of these ideas rattling around in my head for awhile. It's worth mentioning that China features "special economic zones" such as Shanghai, parts of Hainan and others, where more freedom is allowed. The majority of the country, including the area where I live, however, is not privy to these slight benefits. I'm going to list 4 observations I have drawn from China, and the lessons I feel we can learn from them. I tried to make them all relate to things that you could only draw on by actually living in China, instead of facts anyone could look up on the internet. Of course, all questions and comments are welcome. Observation #1: Standardized Testing As a child in China, very little is more important than school. Indeed, children know little else. Schools have few holidays and when they do occur, children are loaded down with enough homework to consume 6-8 hours of every day off; that's just public school. It is not uncommon for a Chinese child as young as 5 to have 2 hours of additional classes after public school every day. Weekends are spent trying to finish your homework in the periods between your 4-6 hours of supplemental classes. Failing a test is the most disastrous thing which can happen to a young Chinese student. Anything less than 100% is a failure. 90% or less is considered absolutely disastrous. The reason for this is quite simple. Public schools are separated based on the test scores of the students who are allowed to enter. Get good scores as a child? You get into a good Middle School. Get good scores in Middle School? Get into a good High School. Get good scores in your High School? Get into a good University. Get good scores in your University? Get a well paying government job. This is the formula. By excluding those who, from a young age are not able to suck up as much government propaganda (schooling) as others, the state effectively insures that only those who have demonstrated an ability to recite statist propaganda will get good jobs, and into positions of influence. The crux of this statist edifice is the standardized test. By repeatedly testing students according to one universal set of standards, the state effects almost total control over every teacher and student in the country. As a teacher, what if you want to teach your students about X? Better make sure X will be on the standardized test; if it's not, your students will do poorly on the test, which means they'll get into lousy schools. As a student, want to study X? Better make sure it'll be on the standardized test; if it's not, you'll do worse on the test, which means you'll get into a lousy school. Standardized tests force teachers to teach and students to study, exactly what the state deems appropriate. The Lesson (a): Standardized tests work for the state because they are decrees that only the knowledge which the state deems important shall be learnt, upon penalty of bad grades, bad schools and then bad careers. This is why decentralization, even of a public school system would be a serious blow, because it would rob the state of the opportunity to dictate to the individual student what is important to learn and to the individual teacher, what is important to teach. If a decentralized public system would be a serious blow to the state, then fully privatized education would surely be its death knell. The information taught to students would largely be focused on preparing them for jobs in the free market. Preparing them for a life of being forced to serve the interests of others in order to make a living. Preparing them for a life where all action is voluntary. The schools which would do this the best, would receive more money and more students. (b) Another point of interest is why degrees become more and more important, as government grows in a country. China is no exception. If you don't have a degree, you can't get a high paying job. Period. Degrees represent a certificate of propaganda mastery. It shows that you have shown at least some sort of ability to inhale propaganda at a reasonably advanced level. This is important in a statist society where jobs rarely reflect one's ability. Intellectuals would hate to admit that perhaps the free market would have no use for their skills. They need the state to artificially manufacture permanent and safe jobs for them. In a free market, we have seen, and would see, less use for degrees. More emphasis would be placed on the ability, creativity and both the physical and intellectual vigor of the individual. Less people would be educated on the sexual habits of the anteater, because consumers have very little desire for this type of information. More people would be forced to consider careers which there was a real market for instead of an artificial statist market. Observation #2: A modern day guild system "I don't want to join the communist party; but I'll never get to teach at a good school if I don't." These were the first words out of the mouth of a Chinese friend of mine, when I asked her why she wanted to join the Communist party. The unfortunate fact of the matter is, as she informed me, was that while capitalism has created a wealth of new jobs in China, the best of these jobs are not necessarily available to everyone. The process is simple, but effective. If you want to get into the Communist party, there needs to be a background check. They need to make sure you haven't been buying any taboo books, been on any taboo websites, or doing anything in general that the government doesn't like. Provided you have a good background, you are then set up to do certain tasks, such as public service, listening to pro government speeches, etc. If you accomplish this, the real fun begins. Every month (or perhaps every 3) you have to write a paper and submit it to the party. it has to include how your thoughts have progressed, why you want to join the party, what you think you can do for the party, and how you think you can improve yourself. After a year or more of this, you can finally be accepted as a low level, card carrying communist party member. This means that better government jobs are now open to you, as well as many highly regulated private jobs. (Which is pretty much all of them) It's worth mentioning that almost all large businesses in China operate in some form of partnership with the government so unless you're a communist party member, the chances of an average Chinese citizen getting even an above average job without being in the party is slim. The Lesson: Whether it's requiring entry to a political party, union, or a state granted license, government loves restrictive entry. You keep your friends in and your enemies out, and make a tidy profit thanks to less competition. So the next time someone proposes required licenses for profession X, tell them China is way ahead of them, it already has a universal license for all professions - all professions above a certain pay grade anyways. Observation #3: The Nature of Propaganda Which is the most oppressive country in the world right now? Probably North Korea. It's no coincidence that they describe themselves as "The friendliest nation on earth". It's also no coincidence that the leader of this oppressive state is referred to as the "dear leader". Can you imagine Obama trying to label the US as the "friendliest nation on earth"? Not even at the height of his popularity would this fly - and yet, the label seems to be more accurate when applied to the US than to North Korea. Certainly Americans have nothing to be proud of when it comes to their murderous and oppressive state, but certainly their state is much less so than North Korea. So why is the label applied to the least appropriate one? Why is the national bank of China called "The People's Bank of China" and the currency "The People's Currency". Why is the army not called the Chinese Army, but instead "The People's Liberation Army"? Again, we cannot imagine these labels being attached to similar Western institutions even though this would be comparatively more appropriate. Why was it only when America started to intervene in world affairs that the "Dept of War" was renamed "The Department of Defense"? Is there something about the nature of statist propaganda that actually ensures the more vehemently something is stated, the more the opposite is true? Quite simply, yes. The Lesson: This is more than just the cliched "ahhhh that's just politicians talking, we know they're a bunch of liars" type of dialog, this is something which can actually be established as a universal truth; a political law, if you will. The stronger government insists something is true; the stronger the opposite is true. This is why Obama has done more to further Bush's agenda than Bush himself, because he so vehemently promised change. This is why Bush proclaimed so loudly that he was 'saving the free market'; because he was destroying it. This is why it is always communist parties who claim themselves "People's Revolutionaries", because their ideas are least suited for the common man. This is why Presidents of old were slower to destroy the free market, because they made no grandiose statements about helping, aiding, saving, changing, altering, abolishing or regulating it. This is why they didn't implement as many welfare programs, because there was no talk about saving the poor. I could go on, and on. So why is this the case? Why don't we see this in the free market? Why doesn't Apple claim it has the cheapest computers? Why don't we see McDonald's ads claiming it has the healthiest food on the planet? Consider this. If you intend to punch me, you will not need much of an excuse. Perhaps you can pass it off as a joke. If you intend to assault me however, you're going to need a much larger excuse. Perhaps I stole your watch. If you intend to kill me, you're going to need an even larger excuse, perhaps I was about to murder your child! The larger the violation of rights is, the larger lie I need to manufacture to oppose it. This is why extremely limited governments never had the amount of propaganda we have from our politicians today, because the violation of rights was also correspondingly small. Today, statist propaganda of every shape and size abounds - because violations of rights abound with equal severity and frequency. Observation #4: The nature of bureaucrats and bureaucracy Name: _______ Passport Number: ________ Address: ________ I had filled this same information literally scores of times since entering China. Now, coming back from Hong Kong I had to do it again. At the bottom of the page, after answering the same questions which are at the top of every form you will ever have the pleasure of filling out in China, was a single question question: "Have you recently experienced any of these H1N1 related symptoms, (which included coughing and sneezing) been diagnosed with H1N1 in the past, or suspect you may have H1N1 now?" I almost laughed out loud. I had just wasted 5 minutes of my time filling out a form, the only purpose of which was to ask me whether or not I was presently suffering from H1N1. When I was done with the form, I placed it into the hands of a police officer on top of hundreds of identical papers, all stating that no, the author of the form was sure that he or she did not have H1N1. Not that it would have mattered if you did. The officer in charge didn't even look at any of the papers as we passed by. "I need what?!" was my incredulous reaction upon hearing the documents I would need in order to receive my residence permit. Apparently, because I had previously lived in a difference place in China, I needed a paper stating that I had lived there (in addition to the documents I first filled out when coming to China which stated that I was living there). In other words, I needed a paper from a company I hadn't worked for, for two months, stating that two months I ago, I lived in an apartment at location X; and I needed this paper in order to get another form telling the police that I was living, and had been living for two months, in a new apartment in area Y. How did I solve this problem? I first naively thought that I could get this mythical paper, if I was persistent enough. 10 hours, 12 taxi rides, numerous government and local police offices later, I was slightly disillusioned and still, form-less. I decided I would resort to the time honored art of bribing my way out. No good, I was told by a friend. Apparently, the Chinese government has been cracking down on bribes; you can only bribe a police officer if you know them personally, otherwise, they're too scared to take your money. In the end, I did get my form. How? By calling enough police officers until I found one of them who didn't know about the rule which I had been trying to avoid this whole time. So why do these regulations exist, not just in China, but everywhere? And just as importantly, why have we seen a universal trend of expansion in regulations? The Lesson: Look at the life of a single one of these regulatory forms. First, it is passed to people who collect them. Then, there need to be people who sort them, and people who analyze them. There need to be people who enforce the regulations, people who decide how to enforce them and people who decide what needs enforcing. All these people need to be first trained and then organized. This process needs to be repeated for every city, municipality, province and state in the country. There need to be multiple tiers of these people; the grunt workers, their bosses, their bosses bosses, etc all the way back to the State Department of X and then The Federal Department of X. In other words, even one regulation can easily involve thousands of people. And so we come to the grand realization. Thousands of bureaucrats have jobs solely based on these forms, procedures and regulations. Thousands of people who have never been trained to get a job in the free market. Thousands of people who have never had to do any real work in their lives. Thousands of people, who have lived off of productive people their whole lives. Now, what are the chances that they're going to give this up, to go into a world they've never been trained for, where they'll be judged based on whether or not people actually need their services? This is the reason why government is always as big as it can possibly be, why true government shrinkage has never occurred in America and why limited government can never work. The Chinese economy has not become free market oriented for the benefit of the people! It has become more free market oriented because the government got wise to the fact that there is a lot more milk for them, when they feed their cattle better. This is not to say that reforms have not benefited the average Chinese citizen, far from it. But the goal of free market reforms has always been more tax dollars and higher salaries for government workers. If real freedom had been the goal, we would have also seen an expansion in civil liberties parallel to the expansion in economic freedom. Yet, this has not occurred, to any measurable extent. How much money would the average bureaucrat make by allowing protests? Unblocking youtube and other websites? Allowing religious freedom? Nothing, so it has not happened and probably will never happen in the foreseeable future. Once you allow government in, you create a permanent class of people accustomed to a parasitic life, and they will never give up power voluntarily. Once you start the process of limited government, you have already lost the battle. People in power and control will always seek more power and control, those in the limited government will look to create more government. Once more government is created, it is impossible to go back. More government will be piled onto the previous government and the process will continue, unable to be stopped. Government is an ever expanding virus for which there is no cure. When you give people the ability to live on the dollars of others they will quickly find themselves unable to make a living else wise. When you give people power over others, be it petty or grand, you can be sure they will never relinquish this power willingly. When you create a system whereby a certain elite group of people can redistribute favors to the masses and then allow anyone access this power, you ensure that only forked tongued would-be demagogues shall occupy it. We need to accept that we have lost the battle. There is no reversing the tide of government, we absolutely cannot do it. We need to wait for the system to collapse under its own weight, before anything can be put in its place.
Now, what are the chances that they're going to give this up, to go into a world they've never been trained for, where they'll be judged based on whether or not people actually need their services? This is the reason why government is always as big as it can possibly be, why true government shrinkage has never occurred in America and why limited government can never work. The Chinese economy has not become free market oriented for the benefit of the people! It has become more free market oriented because the government got wise to the fact that there is a lot more milk for them, when they feed their cattle better. This is not to say that reforms have not benefited the average Chinese citizen, far from it. But the goal of free market reforms has always been more tax dollars and higher salaries for government workers. If real freedom had been the goal, we would have also seen an expansion in civil liberties parallel to the expansion in economic freedom. Yet, this has not occurred, to any measurable extent. How much money would the average bureaucrat make by allowing protests? Unblocking youtube and other websites? Allowing religious freedom? Nothing, so it has not happened and probably will never happen in the foreseeable future. Once you allow government in, you create a permanent class of people accustomed to a parasitic life, and they will never give up power voluntarily.
This is the reason why government is always as big as it can possibly be, why true government shrinkage has never occurred in America and why limited government can never work. The Chinese economy has not become free market oriented for the benefit of the people! It has become more free market oriented because the government got wise to the fact that there is a lot more milk for them, when they feed their cattle better. This is not to say that reforms have not benefited the average Chinese citizen, far from it. But the goal of free market reforms has always been more tax dollars and higher salaries for government workers. If real freedom had been the goal, we would have also seen an expansion in civil liberties parallel to the expansion in economic freedom. Yet, this has not occurred, to any measurable extent. How much money would the average bureaucrat make by allowing protests? Unblocking youtube and other websites? Allowing religious freedom? Nothing, so it has not happened and probably will never happen in the foreseeable future. Once you allow government in, you create a permanent class of people accustomed to a parasitic life, and they will never give up power voluntarily.
The Chinese economy has not become free market oriented for the benefit of the people! It has become more free market oriented because the government got wise to the fact that there is a lot more milk for them, when they feed their cattle better. This is not to say that reforms have not benefited the average Chinese citizen, far from it. But the goal of free market reforms has always been more tax dollars and higher salaries for government workers. If real freedom had been the goal, we would have also seen an expansion in civil liberties parallel to the expansion in economic freedom. Yet, this has not occurred, to any measurable extent. How much money would the average bureaucrat make by allowing protests? Unblocking youtube and other websites? Allowing religious freedom? Nothing, so it has not happened and probably will never happen in the foreseeable future. Once you allow government in, you create a permanent class of people accustomed to a parasitic life, and they will never give up power voluntarily.
Chinese citizen, far from it. But the goal of free market reforms has always been more tax dollars and higher salaries for government workers. If real freedom had been the goal, we would have also seen an expansion in civil liberties parallel to the expansion in economic freedom. Yet, this has not occurred, to any measurable extent. How much money would the average bureaucrat make by allowing protests? Unblocking youtube and other websites? Allowing religious freedom? Nothing, so it has not happened and probably will never happen in the foreseeable future. Once you allow government in, you create a permanent class of people accustomed to a parasitic life, and they will never give up power voluntarily.
If real freedom had been the goal, we would have also seen an expansion in civil liberties parallel to the expansion in economic freedom. Yet, this has not occurred, to any measurable extent. How much money would the average bureaucrat make by allowing protests? Unblocking youtube and other websites? Allowing religious freedom? Nothing, so it has not happened and probably will never happen in the foreseeable future. Once you allow government in, you create a permanent class of people accustomed to a parasitic life, and they will never give up power voluntarily.
When you give people the ability to live on the dollars of others they will quickly find themselves unable to make a living else wise. When you give people power over others, be it petty or grand, you can be sure they will never relinquish this power willingly. When you create a system whereby a certain elite group of people can redistribute favors to the masses and then allow anyone access this power, you ensure that only forked tongued would-be demagogues shall occupy it.
An Inspired look at where we are and where we're going.
Seph:
Thank you very much for the informative post from an inside perspective of China. I have a couple questions about China.
1) What are the taxes like?
2) How easy is it to start up a business?
3) Can one get around speaking English?
Thanks.
Seph: As a teacher, what if you want to teach your students about X? Better make sure X will be on the standardized test; if it's not, your students will do poorly on the test, which means they'll get into lousy schools. As a student, want to study X? Better make sure it'll be on the standardized test; if it's not, you'll do worse on the test, which means you'll get into a lousy school.
Can someone explain these sentences for me? It doesn't seem coherent to me.
Chris: Seph: Thank you very much for the informative post from an inside perspective of China. I have a couple questions about China. 1) What are the taxes like? 2) How easy is it to start up a business? 3) Can one get around speaking English? Thanks.
Difficult questions to answer as things can greatly differ depending on where you live in China. Some areas are backwards, poor areas where almost no one speaks English and literally the only Western things you will see are McDonalds and KFC.
Other areas, like Hong Kong and Shanghai are some of the most modern cities on earth, where almost all young people speak English.
And then there are about a million areas in between. So any specifics you have would help. Also, let me make the caveat that 'knowing China' is basically impossible. I lived in Canada for the first 18 years of my life, yet I cant tell you the first thing about some aspects of the country. China is the same. Having said all that....
1. Taxes (from what I can tell, I've talked to people who have owned a business, but never owned one myself) are generally better than what you'd find in America. If you could find an area in China where your direct taxation is equal to, or more, than what you'd expect to pay in Western countries, I'd be surprised indeed. The real benefit though, is the cheap labour and total lack of any labour regulation.
2. Similar to the above. As long as you're not trying to do anything too big, you shouldn't have much trouble. Be careful though, if you're planning to own a business and make sure you have all your papers in order before you do anything. I had a friend who wanted to open a bar, but had to register it as a cafe because of some snafoo with the paperwork. This meant he had to close at 11pm every night.
3. Totally depends where you live. I'm living in a city now where maybe 1 out of 200 people (if that) can speak some basic English. In Hong Kong or Shanghai it's more like 1 in 2.
But no matter where you go, or what you intend to do, my advice would be the same. Unless you're made of money, find a job, study, or do something else in China for the first 6 months-1 year where your accommodations and visa are totally taken care of by people who have experience with that sort of thing. This will give you a year to settle in, meet people, get to know the area and the culture without having the hassle of trying to set up living conditions and visa's without speaking the language.
Despite all the negatives I've mentioned, if you're thinking of starting a business, China is a good choice. Having lived here and in Canada, I can unequivocally state that I'd rather start a business here.
Chris:2) How easy is it to start up a business?
They have a fairly high rating in that at http://www.freetheworld.com/, but only as of 2006.
such a good post.
Nielsio: Seph: As a teacher, what if you want to teach your students about X? Better make sure X will be on the standardized test; if it's not, your students will do poorly on the test, which means they'll get into lousy schools. As a student, want to study X? Better make sure it'll be on the standardized test; if it's not, you'll do worse on the test, which means you'll get into a lousy school. Can someone explain these sentences for me? It doesn't seem coherent to me.
Basically, it's saying that teachers need to teach students X, because X is on the standardized test.
Same goes for the U.S. and their standardized tests, which are increasing. The state of Pennsylvania is having more standardized tests added, not all schools in the state have the same amount, but currently a local school here has two tests (one being about six days long). Statewide 8 more tests are being added next year. Of those 8, students have to take and pass 6 of them before they graduate. Those tests will be available periodically throughout their high school years. The students have to make sure they go and take the 6 tests before their high school years end. So that will bring the total standardized tests the students have to take up from 2 to 8.
wilderness: Basically, it's saying that teachers need to teach students X, because X is on the standardized test.
I understand that, but still the paragraph doesn't make any sense to me.
As a teacher, what if you want to teach your students about X? Better make sure X will be on the standardized test;Teachers can effect the content of the tests? That doesn't make sense in this whole central planning story.if it's not, your students will do poorly on the test,If the teacher's favorite topic isn't on the test, the students will do badly on the test? Why? Won't they just study the actual curriculum regardless? Again: incoherent.which means they'll get into lousy schools. As a student, want to study X? Better make sure it'll be on the standardized test;Incoherent again. A student doesn't control what's in the tests. if it's not, you'll do worse on the test,If what you like doesn't happen to be on the test, then you won't do well? Again: a totally crude way to explain this.
Can someone confirm that the paragraph was very poorly written, or am I crazy?
As I understand it, he is saying that the desires of the Teacher & the Student in terms of curriculum are akin to self-immolation.
iow: If the Teacher makes the decision to teach *anything* outside of what is on the standardized tests, the student will perform poorly on the tests, which results in a termination of school advancement. Same holds true if the student spends any amount of time pursuing studies outside of what's on the tests, its so competitive that any time spent studying non-standardized material will also result in failure.
Seph: Observation #1: Standardized Testing If a decentralized public system would be a serious blow to the state, then fully privatized education would surely be its death knell. The information taught to students would largely be focused on preparing them for jobs in the free market. I agree.State schools spend so much time indoctrinating that they almost forget to teach any skills at all. (b) Another point of interest is why degrees become more and more important, as government grows in a country. Interesting.Is it possible degrees would be less needed in a stateless society? Observation #3: The Nature of Propaganda Why is the national bank of China called "The People's Bank of China" and the currency "The People's Currency". Why is the army not called the Chinese Army, but instead "The People's Liberation Army"? Here in britain right now we have adverts and posters called the state post office(the royal mail) "The People's Post Office".I think most ordinary people hate the state postal system yet are forced to use it. The Lesson: This is more than just the cliched "ahhhh that's just politicians talking, we know they're a bunch of liars" type of dialog, this is something which can actually be established as a universal truth; a political law, if you will. The stronger government insists something is true; the stronger the opposite is true. This is interesting.Sounds quite a reliable law. This is why Obama has done more to further Bush's agenda than Bush himself, because he so vehemently promised change. It's that old tactic.Hide the truth by claim your doing exactly the opposite of what your really doing.It's like Orwellian doublespeak.Afterall they do tell us " war is peace" ,"Tax slavery makes you free" etc. This is why Bush proclaimed so loudly that he was 'saving the free market'; because he was destroying it. Just like the media set up the free market straw man only to knock it down. I could go on, and on. So why is this the case? Why don't we see this in the free market? Why doesn't Apple claim it has the cheapest computers? Why don't we see McDonald's ads claiming it has the healthiest food on the planet? (I know this is stating the obvious but it's just an important point) the reason is because the incentives are all different.Structurally the state inclines those involved with it to lie to protect it's very existence. The Lesson: Look at the life of a single one of these regulatory forms. First, it is passed to people who collect them. Then, there need to be people who sort them, and people who analyze them. There need to be people who enforce the regulations, people who decide how to enforce them and people who decide what needs enforcing. All these people need to be first trained and then organized. This process needs to be repeated for every city, municipality, province and state in the country. There need to be multiple tiers of these people; the grunt workers, their bosses, their bosses bosses, etc all the way back to the State Department of X and then The Federal Department of X. In other words, even one regulation can easily involve thousands of people. And so we come to the grand realization.
If a decentralized public system would be a serious blow to the state, then fully privatized education would surely be its death knell. The information taught to students would largely be focused on preparing them for jobs in the free market.
I agree.State schools spend so much time indoctrinating that they almost forget to teach any skills at all.
Another point of interest is why degrees become more and more important, as government grows in a country.
Interesting.Is it possible degrees would be less needed in a stateless society?
Here in britain right now we have adverts and posters called the state post office(the royal mail) "The People's Post Office".I think most ordinary people hate the state postal system yet are forced to use it.
This is interesting.Sounds quite a reliable law.
It's that old tactic.Hide the truth by claim your doing exactly the opposite of what your really doing.It's like Orwellian doublespeak.Afterall they do tell us " war is peace" ,"Tax slavery makes you free" etc.
Just like the media set up the free market straw man only to knock it down.
(I know this is stating the obvious but it's just an important point) the reason is because the incentives are all different.Structurally the state inclines those involved with it to lie to protect it's very existence.
Great Post! . Do you think it's fair to say China is no longer Socialist but not corporatist? That does seem to be the pattern former socialist states follow.
This sounds like something Mises would have wrote in his book Bureaucracy.Maybe he did.It's on my "to read" list.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Nielsio:Teachers can effect the content of the tests?
No, that's the whole point.....only the government can...
Nielsio:If the teacher's favorite topic isn't on the test, the students will do badly on the test? Why? Won't they just study the actual curriculum regardless?
Nielsio:Incoherent again. A student doesn't control what's in the tests.
Nielsio:Can someone confirm that the paragraph was very poorly written, or am I crazy?
I dont see anyone else having troubles, but thanks anyways
I will likely be visiting family in China this summer in Fuzhou, though I may travel within the country too. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about what I will be doing in China, though I plan on writing about my experiences. What do people here think would be interesting subject matters? I will likely compile a list of questions to ask some of my relatives, who have had a great deal of experience in industry, government, business, etc.
Unfortunately, I'll need to really brush up on my Chinese, since I never use it anymore. The whole being-largely-illiterate-in-Chinese thing is also not too great. I'm very excited about this trip, though. My first trip to China as an adult, and possibly the last time I will be able to see some family members.
Folks, is it necessary to re-quote the entire OP?
Ffs..
What would happen if the Chinese government decided to do away with all the economic regulations, except having to be a member of the Communist Party?
CrazyCoot: What would happen if the Chinese government decided to do away with all the economic regulations, except having to be a member of the Communist Party?
There would cease to be a Communist Party.
Amazing post! Depressing conclusion though...