Positive and Negative

I've been sucked in by a tragic novel (and a TV show adapted from it) lately. The story is almost like an illustration of Tsangyang Gyatso, the 6th Dalai Lama's poem:

First, it's best not to meet, so then you may not love.
Second, it's best not to know each other, so then you may not lovesick.
Third, it's best not to be in accompany, so then you may not owe .
Fourth, it's best not to sympathize, so then you may not recall.
Fifth, it's best not to love,so then you may not abandon.
Sixth, it's best not face to face, so then you may not greet.
Seventh, it's best not to wait for each other, so that you may not let down.
Eighth, it's best not to promise, so that you may not continue.
Ninth, it's best not to depend, so that you may not snuggle.
Tenth, it's best not to encounter, so that you may not reunite.
But to meet is to know. Better never having met than have.
How do I sever myself from you, to avoid missing you in my life and death.

This is more or less The Beatles' "To Know Her is to Love Her" (and various "To Know Him is to Love Him") stated in the negative, which reminds me of the Golden Rule.

In Christianity, the Golden Rule is stated as "so in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." (Matthew 7:12) In Confucianism, the Golden Rule is "do not do unto others what you do not wish for yourself." (Confucius, The Analects, XV: 24)

I remember when Professor Tu Wei-ming mentioned these Golden Rules in class, he said that these words, though ancient, can shed light on not just individual, but state behavior in history as well as in the modern world. For instance, the expansion of the European empires lead to colonialism, U.S.' power made it assume a leadership role in the global order with active presence in the Middle East as well as Asian Pacific, executing policies informed by the idea of "promoting democracy", leading the war on terror and  intervention in Libya, in contrast, even when the ancient Chinese empire had ships reaching far lands, instead of colonialize those people, the emperors were typically content with a nominal recognition as the "son of Heaven" and would splurge for some exotic gifts as tributes in return.

Is there any linguistic or cultural study of why the Chinese tend to state things / act in a negative sense -- "do not"; but Western countries the opposite?

A Deleted Xinhua Article on Kim Jong-Il's Death

The article was originally published on Xinhua, but deleted within several hours, that is, before it was reposted on one of Caijing's website. The deletion makes the article even more mysterious and makes one wonder what in this article is troublesome to Xinhua's editors and those at the Propaganda Department.

The article is entitled "What happens to North Korea now that Kim Jong-Il is dead?" My translation:

Kim Jong-Il is dead -- (I) wasn't so surprised to hear this. From a natural perspective, everyone dies, no matter how high his position is, how powerful he is, how much his wealth is worth, death is inevitable to everyone. So death is a natural occurrence, any rational person will face it with calm. But Kim Jong-Il's death would still bring his family and friends a sudden pain. Now that Kim Jong-Il is dead, an era has come to an end, what happens to the future North Korea?

The Chinese still have a general favorable feeling about North Korea, because no matter in ancient times or modern times, China and the country a river away have always kept friendly communications. When an ordinary Chinese mentions North Korea, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il immediately come to their minds. In Kim Il-Sung era, North Korean revolutionary efforts progressed rapidly, and as they were just about to unify the Korean Peninsula, U.S. invasion turned the situation around, and the Korean army was suffering great lost. As their revolution was hanging on a string, and it could be said that it was the most difficult time in North Korea, Mao Zedong firmly made the decision to help North Korea fight against America, and preserved the fruits of North Korean revolution, laid ground of North Korea's map and independent development today. After North Korea entered into Kim Jong-Il era, China and North Korea have kept a close relation.

But the Kim Jong-Il era North Korea is still marred with danger and threats from all sides, especially in the recent several years, it has been facing difficulties domestically and internationally. In diplomacy, North Korea has had a series of incidents. Non stop North-South conflicts; politically, U.S., Japan and other countries are always keep a close eye on North Korea and keep stirring up conflicts in the North and South, imposing several rounds of economic sanctions on North Korea. Militarily, they urged South Korea to having military exercises and making North Korea feel an existential danger. Yet North Korea has held firm its persistent and never-compromise national policy, the submarine incident, the bombing of Yeonpyeong Island almost lead to wars, if not for the mediation and the support from China and Russia, war would have already started. North Korea lack of power would lead it to a fight to death, and this could very much lead to an all-out war or a nuclear war. Economically, North Korea has always followed a policy of seclusion. Its socio-economically development has been slow and its ordinary citizens have a very low living standards. Whenever faced with natural disasters, North Korea would have to depend on neighboring countries' aid.

North Korea's economic difficulties are ingrained into its politics: seclusion policy, tight control over the press, military dictatorship, still exercising planned economy, are the reasons why North Korea are still very backward in its economy. Even though Kim Jong-Il had come to China to visit and study a number of times, revealing that he was considering ways of reform, actual practice has not showed effectiveness.

Kim Jong-Il passed away, leaving behind a North Korea that is economically and politically backward. As his successor, the 28-year-old Kim Jong-un would probably become the new leader, but this succession leaves plenty of room for our imagination. What would happen to the future of North Korea? What road would it take? Would it still pratice the lineage-controlled Communist military dictatorship, or model after China to explore Communist reform, or accept South Korea's unification policy and step on a road to capitalism, all is a question mark.

No matter what road North Korea would take, as a neighbor and former close ally, every Chinese wish North Korea would pass the current difficulty with stability and peace. Of course, we also wish that those countries that are thinking (plotting) something will keep their rationale and give North Korea some time, and let their people voluntarily decide what they want for the future.

The Biggest Challenge in Handling Post-Kim-Jong-Il North Korea

Forgive me for not being able to rejoice in the death of a dictator. Kim Jong-Il died before he was able to groom his son into a full-fledged credible, powerful successor. No one is able to predict what's going to happen. Of course, when Kim Jong-Il himself took over his father's leadership, the international community had the same worries and made the same predictions: the pending collapse or implosion of the regime.

The biggest challenge in handing post-Kim-Jong-Il North Korea, IMHO, is to align the interests of major foreign players: South Korea, U.S. and China.

President Obama and President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea had an urgent phone call at midnight tonight, in which Obama assured Lee of U.S. commitments "to the stability on the Korean peninsula, and to the freedom and security of our allies." The press release was extremely short, merely restating the commitment, and stating they would be in close touch, reflecting the caution both administrations took facing the unpredictability of the North Korean situation.

What is noticeably absent is any publicized exchange between the Obama White House and China.

Let's see where each country's interest lies:

For China, the worst fear after Kim's death is the possibility of a regime collapse/ implosion. This could happen in multiple ways, one of which is the scenario of a power struggle leading to a civil war. In which case, China would mostly likely to step in before the spill over reaches its northern province.

For U.S., Kim's untimely death poses the crucial question of who has his finger on North Korea's nuclear button. The possibility of Iran or terrorists gaining access to North Korean nuclear technologies and materials significantly increased now that there is a vacuum in command and control. So in the case of a North Korean implosion, the American troops in South Korea would be the first to step in and secure the nukes.

To make matters worse, the Chinese and U.S. militaries have not talked to each other about their steps in such a scenario -- understandably, Beijing wouldn't want their North Korean "friends" to know that they are actually contemplating the possibility of North Korean collapse with capitalist America -- but as all students of international relations know, mis-understandings/communications could only exacerbate the potential for conflicts.

I can only hope that Beijing and Washington, both civilian government and military, are having candid and rigorous discussions right now, not leaving any scenario off the table.

China's Soul -- A Moving Scene at Taiyuan Railway Station

The story of a 2-year-old baby girl run over twice while more than a dozen passerbys ignored her in cold blood caused an uproar in China last month.

This morning, these photos caught my eyes.

November 25th, Taiyuan Railway Station, an old man was seen unmoved in his chair for a long time. Some passengers tried to wake him up, only to find him dead cold. They called the police.

A monk at the scene went over to perform the rituals to release his soul from purgatory.

When the high speed railway collided near Wenzhou and the authorities buried the wrecks before any investigation, many in China questioned whether this country have lost its soul for the economic growth. The toddler trategy seems to amplified the voice: "China, please slow down your breakneck pace, wait for your people, wait for your soul, wait for your morals, wait for your conscience! ... Walk slowly and let every life enjoy freedom and dignity. No one should be cast aside by this era."

The Chinese netizens expressed great respect for this monk, but this could change little the grim reality of religious oppression in the country.

I remember in Tu Wei-ming's class, he asked a question: "Can law make people virtuous?"

China has made serious effort to build a more comprehensive legal system. There is few country that has so many laws, regulations, orders and rules coming out all the time, covering almost every conceivable part of the modern society. After the railway collision, from officials in the government, to public intellectuals, and to netizens, people have been calling for more regulations, better oversight, rooting out corruption, etc. They want severe penalty to be imposed on the guilty parties. Same applies to the toddler incident.

But can law make people virtuous? Can law cultivate compassion?

I am worried about the huge inequality in China, which is a source of instabilities and possibly drastic changes in the country in the short term, however I am much more worried about something intangible -- that this once great civilization has lost its soul. These photos give me some hope. And I wish they will make an impact to those who see them.

Premier Zhu Rongji during U.S.- China WTO Negotiations

The publication of former Premier Zhu Rongji's speeches and conversations is an early Christmas present for all China watchers. Most of the material published in this collection has never before been released.

I had a strong sense of deja vu reading through the four-volume collection, because we are living with the consequences of many of the policies overseen by Zhu during his tenure without realizing how fast those changes have been brought upon us, and at the same time, some of the most paramount challenges we are having today are the same ones troubling him one or two decades ago. I will summarize a few key issues/reoccuring themes in this collection next time, and you can read my friend Damien's translation of some excerpts from his speeches.

In this post, I'd like to share with you Zhu Rongji's comments during China's WTO negotiations with the U.S.. These records show the tremendous domestic pressure he was under, especially with the Ambassy bombing that occured in the middle of the negotiations. Some of his words also reveal the temperament of Jiang Zemin and the relationship between the military and the civilian government. As you will see, Zhu is an extremely straight-talking person, and does not fear to reveal emotions. I hope you find it entertaining.

 

Meeting with U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, Head of National Economic Council Gene Sperling, etc.

Nov. 13, 1999 at 10:30 AM, Zhu Rongji met with U.S. delegation in Zhongnanhai to negotiate China’s entry into WTO

ZHU: I apologize for not notifying you of this meeting until early morning – it was short notice. But I have to make clear of the situation: I’ve been as busy as you are during the negotiations in the past two days, since I’ve got to read all your statements. I even know that Mr. Sperling said six “no”s.

SPERLING: I remember I only said four.

ZHU: … after receiving your letter, we had a midnight meeting that wasn’t over until 3 AM. You can estimate how many hours of sleep I’ve had. But remember, I’m more than 70 years old, much older than you all. Some of you are even younger than my daughter. Now, before we state our position, can we have our honorable guests to speak first? Yet I have to remind you, the longer you speak, the shorter I will.

BARSHEFSKY: … we now have complete authorization … President Clinton, in his letter to Chairman Jiang, has taken back the ten year quota for textile. We have been flexible in telecommunication, insurance and automobile sectors… WTO is far beyond an economic agreement, but has a build-in political understanding…

SPERLING: … I used to think that before the President receives some concessions from China, we shouldn’t make any compromise on textile and general safeguard provisions, but the President persuaded us to make exceptional compromises in order to show China that we are willing to reach an agreement the Chinese people can accept… We hope that China can understand the sensitive issues we raised as well.

ZHU: (Reminded the Americans that China made concession even before April on the agricultural sector.) You come here this time, saying U.S. is making an unprecedented compromise; China is not responding correspondingly; and you are throwing tantrums all over this. I’ll make one point: you don’t know how much concession we’ve made in agriculture. I am blamed by the people in the entire country for this, do you know that?

I reiterate that I will never back away from the concession we’ve made in agriculture, but if we cannot reach an agreement this time, we will never ever make any compromise on the agricultural front!

(On the Two 51% issue -- share of foreign investment in telecommunication and insurance industries) I still think that the “two 51%” issue is not a big problem. I have said this again and again, and to Mr. Summers too, blowing an agreement for a couple of percentage is very stupid. The percentage of foreign investment in insurance companies we have approve so far is as high as 49% sometimes, and sometimes 50%, sometimes even 51%; you could check to see what difference it makes? Not at all! Even for those with 49%, it could be managed by the foreign partner. That’s why the couple of percentages don’t make any actual difference. But why are we insisting on this? Not to go back on our words, but the situation has changed. First of all, it’s because you shouldn’t bomb our Embassy in Yugoslavia… Chinese have always thought that the telecommunication and insurance industries are of vital interests [to the nation]. They think that if I agree to 51%, I’m selling out China’s interests – even though I don’t think so. From there on, a rumor is spreading in and outside of China that “Zhu Rongji is going to quit; [he] is going out of office.” That’s a complete unfounded. But the truth is I’m criticized by all sides. Such criticism comes from the people – they don’t understand the real situation. You don’t understand our  public opinion. If I’m not in China, but in the U.S., I would be out of office long ago. Now I have to stick to the “two 51%” in order not to fail the entire population. So I’m happy that you no longer insist on the “two 51%” issue, though it doesn’t have any practical impact, you indeed helped me out on this one. You could tell your insurance industry people that 51 or 50% aren’t really different. I have more friends in the American insurance industry than you do. There is not one big insurance company that I do not know; they’ve all come to me before. They’ll understand.

… Now I’m not speaking from the April 10th documents, but only on the issues where we have a difference in opinion – we both know what these issues are:

1. Automobile. This time you are telling me that this is President Clinton’s political base. Mr. Sperling, I respect your opinion; I compromise, because I respect President Clinton. We’ll reduce import tax to 25% by July 1st 2006 and agree to separate sales of automobile and auto credit… Specifically how to reduce the tax, here you are playing some tricks, is it Mr. Cassidy’s idea? [*Robert Cassidy, then assistant U.S. Trade Representative for China] You demand almost a complete reduction within the first two years; I think a flat reduction over six years would be more convincing, won’t it? I’m not persisting, why bother persisting on these small matters!

2. Special safeguard provision retainment years. Mr. Sperling, you were so mad about this, and must get “returns”, and I am prepared to make some compromise, but is the 15-year term absolutely non-deductable? We responded by proposing 3 years – that is too short. Maybe we can still work this out. Is it possible to reduce a year or two? What about a 10-year term? I think that’s more than enough, if China is not market economy by then, I’d be really pessimistic….

3. Music and movie. … I’m thinking: How important China-US relation is! If we can’t reach an agreement because of a cinema, or because of an Audio-video company, is it worth it? How about let’s say this problem is resolved in principle, with accordance to the April 10th document?

4. Banking. Foreign banks can provide RMB services to corporations within two years and to individuals within five years. I believe there shouldn’t be any more problems on banking; our offer is enough!

5. Securities. It’s very clear that giving permission to foreign securities firm to perform the same businesses the same as Chinese firms is “national treatment”. You included businesses that even Chinese firms aren’t allowed to do, that can’t work.

All these are the most contested issues and I’ve basically, or in principle, made compromises, and that’s all the compromises I could make. The only one issue we cannot make any compromise on, now or in the future, is the international ports of telecommunications. Please understand. Everyone, even the military, would not agree to it. [Zhu used “even”, not “including”. You can see the role/position of the military in relation to the government.]

Nov. 15th, 1999

ZHU: You told us that Ambassador Barshefsky was leaving tomorrow at 8AM. To disappear all of a sudden [the day before] and to leave the next morning without a farewell is very impolite! Mr. Ambassador, you are very experienced as a diplomat. Chairman Jiang called me past midnight yesterday to ask if we’ve found you. He was optimistic and planned to meet you after we reached an agreement. But you called to say that Ambassador Barshefsky planned to meet with Minister Shi [*Shi Guangsheng was then the Minister of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation] and would leave at 8:45 AM for the 10 o’clock plane. To be frank, that sounds like an ultimatum. Now I’m still confounded: this doesn’t like a negotiation, but a hide-and-seek. So I have to see you today, because this is absolutely necessary! Otherwise how do I report back to Chairman Jiang? Not telling us whether the agreement is reachable or impossible, and disappearing all of a sudden, is this serious politics? So I want to ask you in person what exactly you are planning to do. Thanks.

[After clearing up the misunderstanding and some discussion over the key issues of disagreements…]

ZHU: … Apart from these key issues, there isn’t anything important or anything that can influence the public opinion and the people’s interests. As for the less important issues, both sides can reach a win-win agreement in the spirit of mutual understanding and accommodation and according to Chairman Jiang and President Clinton’s conversation. To allow the unimportant issues to hinder our agreement is very unwise. Mr. Barshefsky is my old friend. As for Mr. Sperling, I met [him] last time and didn’t know him well. This time I get to know him more and have a deeper impression of him. Now I don’t have time to negotiate with you; I have to return to chair the meeting before it closes. [* Referring to a nation-wide regional leader meeting on domestic matters, which Zhu described as “far more important than WTO matters”. Zhu went out of the meeting to meet with the American delegation when Jiang was making a speech.] Can we reach an agreement now? Both sides do a press release. If you can accept our conditions, we can reach a historical agreement, achieve a win-win outcome, and solve other problems according to the mutual understanding and accommodation principle. Whether or not this can be signed, I hope you would give a clear answer, though this is not an ultimatum. Compared to Mr. Sperling, I normally have a bigger temper, yet I’ve not raised my temper with you, but [this time] even Chairman Jiang does not have the patience any more.

…

ZHU: Which premier in the world can discuss these matters with you in such details?

BARSHEFSKY: The only person is the President of the United States. He also understands a lot of details [of trade issues].

ZHU: He [President Clinton] is very smart. But if him debates with me on China’s entry into WTO, he may not win.




Allow me to make a few observations:

1. You can see how such high level politics in China almost seems personal: look at the way he talks about knowing Barshefsky personally, getting to know Sperling, respect for Clinton, and personal connections with the people in the American insurance industry.

2. Pressure from public opinion does affect China's foreign policy, contrary to conventional belief that the Communist regime has complete monopoly over the media and its strong propoganda apparatus and indoctrination/education system have everyone in the nation brainwashed.

3. From his way of speech, you can almost say that he is a little bit hot tempered, whereas Chairman Jiang Zemin seems to be the milder one. Zhu definitely seems very confident, and good at prioritization -- you can see that he was very stern on the key issues yet much more flexible on others (such as foreign investment in the insurance industry/telecommunications, etc.) than other Chinese bureaucrats.

What do you see from these negotiations?

My Views on The Atlantic - "5 Most Likely Ways the U.S. and China Could Spark Accidental Nuclear War"

This just came out today. It's 1:08 AM, so I don't have the time / faculty for a thought-through response, but here are a few observations.

1. There is no such thing as "accidental nuclear war". Case in point, Cuban missile crisis.

2. China/Philippines island dispute wouldn't be my first choice of serious threat. Taiwan could be. Despite the escalation of tension over the South China Sea over the past couple of years, which could be seen as "testing waters", China's commitment in its "core interest" Taiwan is much more long-term-standing; and neither U.S. or China would backpedal on their commitments there. More on this later.

3. I'm not worried about "intra-Korea war" as much as the possibility of a North Korean implosion/ collapse, which could be a real possibility with the coming succession. The scenario of a DPRK faction struggle leading to a civil war would cause China to step in and march across the Amnok River again; U.S. troops in South Korea would not sit still either. This could be a very likely launching pad for another China-U.S. war on the Peninsula. The worst thing is, there is no U.S.-China military discussion on this matter at all for [China's] fear that, its North Korean allies knowing that China is considering a plan B for the Kim regime.

4. China and India territorial dispute would not escalate to a U.S.-China nuclear confrontation; but India-Pakistan conflicts could. More on this later.

These are just my quick thoughts on Max Fisher's article. Any comments, disagreements?

China's "New Currency" Speaks Housing Woe: 1 Pan = 1000RMB/sq m

 

(1 Pan: front)

(1 Pan back)



Chinese real estate guru Pan Shiyi, Chairman of Soho China, released a new "bank note" (above) yesterday with his own image and a tagline "SOHO China is Awesome" replacing "China People's Bank" in the real one RMB note on the front. On the back, 1 Pan note says "Once the idea of war emerges, it needs to be supressed by more powerful thoughts of peace. (One) should use more intense thoughts of friendship and love to diminish hatred."

(real 1 RMB note)

It started with Pan Shiyi, in his microblog posts to commemorate Steve Jobs, proposed that Apple should produce iPhone and iPad that cost less than 1,000 RMB ($157) so that more people could afford these products. Chinese netizens, long been outrageous towards the ultra high home prices, replied by saying Pan should offer apartments priced at 1,000 RMB/sq. meter and that this should be a new measurement. Pan probably took the joke as a good marketing opportunity; indeed he encouraged such discussions and calls for him to release a new 1 Pan currency that stands for 1,000 RMB/ sq. meter. At 11AM today (Oct. 26th), Pan Shiyi officially released the design of 1 Pan on his microblog and asked for feedbacks.

Jokes aside, Beijing's efforts in trying to cool home prices has so far hardly seen significant result. Apart from being a sign of economic growth, the soaring housing price is a result of structurally low real interest rates

(particularly relative to income growth), high saving (and therefore ample liquidity), and a lack of alternative investment and property tax.

To me, the government's control over the banks is a major problem. On the one side is state-owned enterprises that get loans with extremely advantageous terms; on the other side is regular depositors getting about 3% interests (which is a de facto negative return for their savings). I can't see how this imbalance could be solved without a certain degree of liberalization of the banking sector.

In the meantime, I'll relish the all the jokes about the new Pan currency, while lamenting the fact that I probably could never afford to buy a home in my hometown back in China.

Debate with a Top 1% / Tax Lawyer

I had a conversation with a good friend yesterday about the tax issue and the row between We are the 99% and 53%. My friend is a tax lawyer at an elite law firm in New York, and definitely belongs to the top 1%.

It went something like this:

Me: Warren Buffet is the one who said that he paid a lower percentage than anyone in his office.

My friend: He didn't take into account that the profit from his companies and all kinds of transactions have already been taxed. In any case, the tax increase he's advocating doesn't really affect him that much -- everyone wants someone else' tax be increased.

Me: But the richest 1% control 40 something percent of the nation's wealth, and they pay so little. (and infographs here and here.)

My friend: People are easily misguided by simple comparison between some numbers. The tax system is very complicated; you can't just drag two numbers together and say it's not fair.

Me: So how come big coorporations that made a profit paid negative tax ( GE had $10.3 billion in pretax income and reported a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.) and hugely profitably oil companies like Exxon Mobile can claim nearly $4 million subsidies each year???

My friend: I don't know the details of these companies, but sometimes even when these companies are globally profitable, it doesn't mean that they made a profit in the U.S., or they had a huge loss in the past year and was rolled into the next time period. For instance, BP's huge loss would roll down to several years.

Me: So if you don't support taxing the rich, i.e. yourself, how do you suppose we resolve the revenue problem?

My friend: The current tax system doesn't work. It's much more complex than it has to be, and has resulted in a lot of inefficiencies. We don't have a straightforward tax code, instead, the Congress passed a lot of separate laws to say we'll give something tax credit up until 2016 (e.g. wind turbines), or give certain companies a tax break. Someone needs to keep track of all these miscellaneous changes all the time. Companies need to hire many lawyers and accountants to do taxes. All these costs are passed on to the consumers, causing prices to be higher than they have to be. That is such a waste.

Me: If the tax system is simple and straightforward, you, my friend, wouldn't have a job.



It's probably not smart to have a debate on tax issues with a tax lawyer, but does anyone have any evidence either to support to oppose my friend's argument?

Is U.S. in Decline?

This article appeared recently in a leading Chinese international relations journal and has got a lot of attention. Below is a précis. Most of the arguments should be familiar to many Americans, in fact, many of the arguments are probably found on the cardboards at #OccupyWallStreet. Isn't it refreshing when a scholar from the "competiting power" put it out like this?


Is U.S. in Decline?
Chu Shulong
Beijing: Contemporary International Relations, April 20, 2011, 1-6

Summary: No fundamental changes have occurred in the key American strengths such as the economy, science and technology, military strength, international political influence, cultural softpower, etc., though U.S. currently face localized difficulties and problems.

U.S. is still way ahead of the world in the following fundamental areas:

1. long-term economic growth

2. stability and influence of the political system, ideology and values. (Though greatly suffered as a result of the Iraq War)

3. science and technology, innovation. (Nobel Prizes, IT/ aviation & aerospace/ biotech/ agricultural/ military technology industries) [Ella: cue Steve Jobs]

4. the global competitiveness of U.S. companies

5. softpower/ culture (Hollywood; higher education system that attracts world’s talents)

Facing problems in the following areas:
1. competitive power of manufacturing industry dropped. [Ella: but does a developed economy necessarily need a strong manufacturing industry? What about making the transition to higher value chain? See case “The High Way to High Wages: Denmark's Answer to the U.S. Model".]

2. decline in the health, stability and quality of service industry: due to the lack of regulation of the finance sector (political funding from the big corporations; inability to regulate Wall St.; quality of service sector decline)

3. inequality in wealth distribution; middle-class not doing well; unsustainable: middle class income has grown little after the 1980s despite the growing economy, which affects the long-term economic growth because of the consumption-based economic model

4. fiscal and trade deficits: public expenditure constrained, government unable to make investment in social and economic development; danger of inflation which may cause dollar depreciation and drop in U.S.’ international competitive power

5. military spending and international strategy: “They have spent too many funds and resources on military affairs, foreign wars and foreign interference. The U.S. has not spent more wealth on its own development… To a certain extent, the U.S. is taking the wrong path that other big countries, such as the former Soviet Union, have already taken in history.”

6. population growth not accompanied by improved population quality: “Over the years, the main source for population growth in the U.S. was legal and illegal immigration from Latin America and their quite high birth rate. This group of people is generally recognized as a group with a quite low educational background, quite poor English, quite low income, quite weak consumption power, and few skills in the U.S.”

7. lax social culture and values: expansion of personal desires and power consciousness, and a decline in a sense of duty; will in learning and working hard is not strong; quality of basic education in the U.S. is not high. (Neoconservatives have tried to change but due to some of their extreme policies and actions, their influence in U.S. politics and society has gradually declined.)

How Much CO2 Does Each China's Coal Power Plant Emit?

For a more complete methodology/data of my estimation, visit my law school blog.

Below is a graph (click for full picture) showing emissions from two dozens of power plants owned by Huaneng, biggest power company in China. Data on the left is measured by thousand tons.