Cinese
apitalism
Aside
This was a difficult article for me to write. I don't know why.
China's Smoking Capitalism
China's economy is exploding to the upside. It's ironic that this communist country is veering towards capitalism, that Germany and France are reducing taxes, but that the U.S. is getting ready to swerve left—which will destroy an economy that is humming along.
The problem in China is, in fact, that it is growing too fast, if you can imagine this. They are paying the price for this unbridled growth with pollution that chokes you with every breath, and a runaway stock market that worries Chinese officials, and the world, for that matter.
The problem is a kind of 1920's scenario, where ordinary folks are making fortunes, and so they sell their homes and valuables to invest. It's a great big Ponzi scheme that eventually will end. The only thing that might keep it from becoming a disaster is that China's real growth is astronomic, about 20% a year or more.
This means that the rise in the Chinese stock market is based on fundamental growth, and not just speculation. Still, if their market rises too much, it will overtake real value, and the last ones to buy in will be left holding the bag—minus their homes and valuables. This is just what happened in the 1920's in America when people could buy stocks on margin, only putting up 10% of the value of a stock to own it. When the market crashed, people couldn't pay their margin calls, and started jumping out of windows.
Again, China is not an exact copy of 1920's America, as China's monstrous growth will cushion the eventual fall of the market. Still.
Discipline, Chinese Style
So, China, aware of the danger, has tried to calm down its market by raising interest rates, increasing margin requirements, and so on. The next thing they are trying is to "eliminate" those who encourage speculation. They've just arrested a blogger who is the most read on the Chinese Internet, because he gave stock tips that work! (See also: Chinese blogger, and Chinese blogger arrested.
You see, there are still differences between how their form of capitalism works and ours. We might want to jail unethical people too, but we have to go through a legitimate trial first. There's always the question of guilt and innocence. Was this Chinese blogger really doing a bad thing by giving good stock tips? I don't know the details—whether he was revealing insider information or something like this. The Chinese, though, don't know enough to charge him with anything specific either. They arrested him simply because they see him as part of the problem of the overly enthusiastic Chinese markets.
Notice too, how they handled an unethical businessman recently. They executed him, within weeks of his being charged!
Now that's a heavy penalty. Our Enron offenders are rotting in jail, but Chinese crooks get shot.
Examples of American "Discipline"
Witness, again, that some of our worst businessmen are rotting in jail, after long drawn-out trials and appeals. Enron, Martha Stewart, et al.
Here is another example of how we handle our business renegades:
See the Pearl Izumi advertisement, (& Pearl Izumi ad) in the window at the top of today's post, which appeared in Runner's World. There has been an outcry against, and for, the ad. People against the ad call it tasteless, and lurid. Those for it call it edgy. No one will arrest the authors, though, nor anyone at Pearl Izumi, nor their parent company Nautilus.
Some people might want to arrest them, but we don't do that sort of thing. The ad was either in bad taste, or was "edgy." You decide.
So, Whose System Is Better?
Dictatorships and totalitarian governments are always more efficient than democracies. They can arrest people without trials and stop stock speculation by banning it, to a certain extent. They can jail people fast, and shoot them too. Who's going to complain?
But then what? They've lost this creative blogger, and they're going to lose a hundred thousand others like him with initiative, who now will be frightened to stand out. If the guy broke a law, the law should be public and known to all, before any arrest; and there should be a fair trial.
While we'd like to execute Martha Stewart some days, it's better that she had a trial and was found guilty, and made muffins for the prisoners. (Yeah!)
Our system is better, believe me.
Unstoppable
Like I said, though, things like China jailing a blogger and executing a businessman after a show trial, won't hurt China's growth all that much. After all, they have unleashed the tiger of capitalism in their country. This beast can be ridden, but it can't be stopped. Who would want to stop it? They will try to slow it down, at the point of a gun, but this behemoth has thick skin. It is mightier than bullets. It is not just a tiger. It is a flaming tiger. Its heat melts bullets, and defies firing squads.
One day, it might even lead to—yes, you guessed it—democracy.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Click here to get a button link to this blog:
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!
Subscribe to my feed
Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.
Technorati Tags for this post:
China, Chinese, Chinese Capitalism, Capitalism, American Capitalism, Chinese blogger, China executes businessman, democracy
Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth
On the first point, I am not an expert on the law, so I'll demure to legal experts on this matter. Yes, I do want law to rule in Iraq. Yes, it was important to get the execution of Saddam right legally. I believe, though, there were other considerations, which I'll get to.
On the second point, I believe it's possible to show theoretical respect for the office of the presidency of Iraq, and for the Sunni followers of Saddam, while at the same time making it clear that Saddam Hussein himself was a deservedly disgraced man.
Obviously, we don't want blatant disrespect being shown to our leaders, soldiers, prisoners and dead. So, following the Golden Rule, we want to treat even the condemned with dignity.
All this I agree with.
Speaking Truth to Power
On the other hand, we have moral obligations in addition to legal and humanitarian obligations. We have a moral obligation to say loud and clear, to Sunnis and Shias alike, and to the world, that Saddam Hussein was a scumbag, and that he deserved to die a thousand deaths.
This is what members of the "righteous" left call "speaking truth to power." I love the concept. The liberals of course think this applies only when an employee is a whistleblower at an oil company, or when a leftist speaks up about Republican corruption, or when a citizen "bravely" calls President Bush a warmonger. The concept of speaking truth to power, though, should be a universal one—a goal worth trying for in many situations.
In this case, the United States needs to speak truth to power by saying to the Sunnis that Saddam was an evil man and deserved to die. This is the truth, and it ought to be said, loud and clear, regardless of consequences. The Sunnis may riot. They may kill innocent human beings because of it. Then, their rioting and killing behavior is their responsibility, and not ours, and needs to be correctly labeled too, as murder and acts of cowardice.
Our Upside Down World
We live in a crazy world sometimes these days. Terrorists are allowed to disrespect us, torture us, murder us, and follow none of the Geneva Conventions, without getting criticized at all by the world—while we must respect the terrorists, avoid torture, not murder them, follow all the Geneva Conventions, yet still get called war criminals by the world and the left.
Our Moral Superiority
If we had been in charge of Saddam's trial, we would have conducted it over a period of about five years. Then, the appeals process would start. Saddam would still be in jail and would be sitting there for 20 years before and if he were ever executed. He would not have been hanged. He might not even have been executed by lethal injection since that, according to the newest leftist thinking, is cruel and unusual punishment.
Plus, if he ever were put to death under us, he would have not been taunted.
Fine, call us morally superior. I don't see it this way. I say we have lost our common sense. We have become so politically correct that we have lost our minds.
Why It's Good Saddam is Dead
One major reason for executing Saddam so quickly was to eliminate the very real threat of a coup attempt on Maliki, or a kidnapping and freeing of Saddam, where Saddam could again lead the Sunnis on a murderous path. The Maliki government needed Saddam dead, and it did the right thing by killing him quickly. Killing Saddam swiftly did mean that the death came right before a major Muslim festival—but notice it was done before the holy days, not during them.
They Should Have Been Nice to Saddam
As far as the taunting goes, yes, if we were in charge it would not have happened. Maybe it shouldn't have happened. After all, it might have interfered with Saddam's self-delusion of the 72 virgins awaiting him. Seriously, though, maybe it shouldn't have happened, but aren't you glad it did? Didn't he deserve it? Can't we understand the executioners' transgressions? The man had butchered their relatives. Maybe they were wrong for being impolite to Saddam, but wasn't it understandable?