Smitty Two wrote:
In article ckl2j.197133$Xa3.94931@attbi_s22, wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article Bak2j.213889$Fc.126562@attbi_s21, wrote:

Norminn wrote:
RBM wrote:

Exactly, there are thousands of companies in China that only have the
capability of crankin out crap. There are also thousands of companies
in China capable of making top of the line anything. We get what we
pay for. I think your dissatisfaction should be directed at the parent
companies who clearly ignore quality control.


Wonder what worker's comp. disability benefits are in China?
They kick you out of the way, bring in another worker, fire you and
harvest your organs for resale to the worlds rich. That way the company
doesn't lose money because of loss of production from the time needed to
force the next person to work the unsafe conditions.
Nobody is forced to work in factories in China. They gladly work six
12-hour days for a $1/day in order to escape the difficult life of
poverty in the rural areas. (Everything is relative.)

Whew! It's really good know that these people work in unsafe conditions
voluntarily.
And a dollar an hour? Wow. Even I could get out of poverty at those rates.
They're smarter than I thought.

That's $1/day, not $1/hr.


Still a good income. I'll bet they save plenty, in a short amount of
time to pay for college, or to start their own business.

George wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
So why are we buying this stuff made in other countries anyhow. We
only hurt ourselves with lack of jobs and higher taxes here in the
US.

Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations" (1776) settled this hash years
ago when he proved that countries should do what they do "best."


He didn't "prove" anything.

He proved a great deal to the analytical, rational, and open mind. He
postulated that there were three axioms to creating wealth: Division of
labor, Self interest, and Free trade. The "Invisible Hand" of the market
corrects for imbalance because people DO act in their own self-interest
(whether they SHOULD, he left up to the parsons). His work has been
recognized as the equivalent to economics as Principia Mathematica by Newton
was to physics.


But durable goods are typically purchased for longer usage periods
(thats why they are called durable). And then there is the issue of
what to do with all of the Walmart junk that fills landfills because
you need to buy one every year instead of maybe every 20 years.

Very much of the "junk" goes back to China, not landfills (over 1 million
tons per year, by recent estimates).
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...toxic1124.html

wrote:

That's $1/day, not $1/hr.


Still a good income. I'll bet they save plenty, in a short amount of
time to pay for college, or to start their own business.

Some do. $1/day is FAR (like five to ten times) more than they were making.

What they do is the whole family works, pools their money, and sends one of
their sons to the U.S. Once he arrives, he gets an off-the-books job and
earns enough in one or two years to bring the whole family over.

They, in turn, work hard and the next generation all go to Cal-Tech.

"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:07:44 -0500, RichK wrote:

[snip]
Can't the Chinese make anything that will
even approach what was on the US market before?


They know how to cook.

Chinese furniture, fabrics, native products can't be touched by U.S. or
European manufacturers. Look at the joinery and construction in a good
piece of Chinese furniture. No one does it better.

Other Chinese manufacturing has been hampered by a lack of good steel, a
result of Mao's decision to make steel a basis for the Great Leap Forward
and backyard steel mills. China also suffered during that period by the
effort of the central government to exert control and a lack of contact with
the outside world, which kept China uninformed on technology developments.

When the right resources are available -- including capital -- Chinese
products can be world class, especially where it is the product of craftsmen
rather than assembly-line production.

FYI, Buick, Volkswagen, Benz, Ford and others now produce vehicles in China,
and Chevy uses a Chinese-produced engine in one of their "U.S."-made cars.

Most manufacturing compounds provide apartments for worker housing and
hospitals and doctors for worker medical care. Medical care is provided by
the manufacturer or a manufacturing consortium; worker apartment rent runs
in the range of $5-$10 per month. (Rents for foreigners are measured in
$1000s per month).

Jaguar and Ferrari have had dealerships in China for over 25 years to
capitalize on the Chinese luxury car market.

The Heritage Foundation rated Hong Kong -- a special administrative region
of China -- as having the world's best free-market economy. What's happened
since 1997 is that, rather than having Hong Kong start to look like the rest
of China, the rest of China is rapidly changing to look like Hong Kong, at
least in the major population areas.

The problem with Chinese product quality is to a large degree a result of
design and management problems (including price pressure) by the buyer.
China factories will produce whatever sells.

There are some items that I will only buy from Chinese manufacturers --
e.g., furniture and wood work -- and others where the source is unimportant.
I have enough experience with China to know that there are still issues with
a clumsy central government, which really doesn't have much authority over
the provinces, and with public perceptions that in some ways haven't changed
in 30 years although China is light years different today. But if I'm going
to buy something, I'm going to try and determine the quality of the product,
or the reputation of the seller, and not worry about the original source of
manufacture.

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:37:49 -0800 (PST), jim
wrote:

On Nov 25, 7:09 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

So why are we buying this stuff made in other countries anyhow. We
only hurt ourselves with lack of jobs and higher taxes here in the US.

Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations" (1776) settled this hash years ago
when he proved that countries should do what they do "best."

I must admit I like a bargain as much as anyone else, but often those
bargains end up costing more in the end. Spend $20 on an electric
heater that lasts one year, or spend $30 on one that lasts 10 years.

If you're only going to use the heater for one year, why pay a $10 premium?

The king of this movement is good old Wallmart they led the charge to
China , Mexico and to who ever could make it for what they wanted it.
Face it America corpreate America is bitting you in the ass we get the
same **** up here in Canada . It is sad but we want cheap prices so we
get it for cheap for a reason.

Exactly the reason to NOT shop at Walmart. I only go there if I
absolutely must, like if I need toilet paper or pet food and all other
stores are closed. Walmart sucks in every way.

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:57:40 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article Bak2j.213889$Fc.126562@attbi_s21, wrote:

Norminn wrote:
RBM wrote:

Exactly, there are thousands of companies in China that only have the
capability of crankin out crap. There are also thousands of companies
in China capable of making top of the line anything. We get what we
pay for. I think your dissatisfaction should be directed at the parent
companies who clearly ignore quality control.



Wonder what worker's comp. disability benefits are in China?


They kick you out of the way, bring in another worker, fire you and
harvest your organs for resale to the worlds rich. That way the company
doesn't lose money because of loss of production from the time needed to
force the next person to work the unsafe conditions.

Nobody is forced to work in factories in China. They gladly work six
12-hour days for a $1/day in order to escape the difficult life of
poverty in the rural areas. (Everything is relative.)


Look up the June issue of National Geographic on China's Boomtowns for
a good inside story.
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/n...geographic.com

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:58:39 GMT, wrote:

PaPaPeng wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:46:30 -0500, Norminn
wrote:

RBM wrote:

Exactly, there are thousands of companies in China that only have the
capability of crankin out crap. There are also thousands of companies in
China capable of making top of the line anything. We get what we pay for. I
think your dissatisfaction should be directed at the parent companies who
clearly ignore quality control.


Wonder what worker's comp. disability benefits are in China?

None. Low level factory jobs are not career jobs. Migrant workers
work three or four years and move up, move out , move home or start
their own enterprises.


I guess then that this means that they have no incentive to improve
their skills as far as manufacturing.


Wrong. There is this intense hunger to learn everything they can
while in the city and the factory. This is on the job education and
training they never got at home. They had seen how peasants like
themselves go to the cities before them and come back and prosper.
They have seen how unschooled peasants like themselves become
millionaires overnight. The old middle class had been destroyed by
Mao. There is no old money and no old money power or class to block
their rise. The new middle class are people like themselves. No
doubt only a fraction will realise that dream of becoming
significantly better than their old station. But everything is
possible. The opportunities are wide open in every field and service.
China is on the move. They know no one will give it to them. They
will make it for themselves.

I spent a few hours at Beijing's central train station watching
migrant workers come and go. That place has easily 10,000 people at
any one time. Those that were heading back had a distinct look of
hope and confidence in their eyes and in their gait. Those that were
coming in looked a bit lost but in no way were they frightened or
submissive. They certainly didn't look or carry themselves like they
were downtrodden and destitute. They are the future of China for they
are truely the sons and daughters of the land.

During my stay I watched a program on CCTV and it featured a self
taught artis, now a university prof and one of the most wellknown in
China, who came from one of the poorest parts of Shaanxi Province.
One portrait of his featured three peasants squatting down in the
train station that began as a video clip panning on to them and then
dissolving into the acrylic portrait that captured exquisitely the
hope in their eyes and the slightly opened lips gaping in wonder at
their first arrival in a big city and their entry into a new life. It
was then I realised that was exactly what I saw at the train station,
the future of China. It was an awesome feeling.

I asked my host how it is possible for an unschooled artist to become
an art professor at the university. She said yes, but it no longer
possible to do so. It was the Cultural Revolution that wiped out a
decade of schooling. When the schools reopened any one who passed the
entrance exams or had exceptional talent could be admitted to
university. This is true because I have a married couple friend whose
husband is a senior Heart Surgeon and the wife an Internist and WHO
scholar. He missed school and went the entrance exam admission route.
She had four years high school, no elementary. I also met another
husband and wife team of top molecular biologists with PhDs from the
States and only a batchelor's from China (no elhi schooling).

If the above sounds improbable and unbelievable it does except I have
come across many such examples in real life. Do read the book
http://www.amazon.com/Gang-One-Memoi.../dp/0803243081
Gang of One: Memoirs of a Red Guard (American Lives) (Hardcover)
by Fan Shen (Author)
that has several chapters on his childhood while caught up in the
Cultural Revolution. He too had no elhi schooling and he now lectures
English in a NYC college if I remember.

Yes and read that National Geographic article too "China's Boomtowns.
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/n...geographic.com

This brings to mind another anecdote. My elderly relative visited
Shenzen the boomtown near Hongkong. Only in China will you get a
sightseeing tour that includes a visit to a sweatshop factory. So she
chatted up this girl worker. She said. "Yes we know the shoe sells
for $100. Our boss gets only a few dollars profit and pays us 40
cents an hour. We don't care. China has been poor for too long. We
will work hard. China will grow rich. Then we will show them."

And that sirs is the competition you face.

CFLs should not be used on dimmers.

Also proper disposal of these should be considred since it may have
lead in it.

On Nov 26, 3:24 pm, cln wrote:
CFLs should not be used on dimmers.

Also proper disposal of these should be considred since it may have lead in it.

Mercury... sorry not lead.

Well Mr something is defiantly wrong. I don't think we have to worry much
about you owning anyone. With the pollution you generate and the toxic
elements you use with no good reason in your products you won't be around
long enough to do anything.

China is in it's lawlessness phase where they will use glycol ethylene to
sweeten toothpaste, lead in the paint used on kid's toys, deadly cooking
oils, exploding beer bottles, melamine in pet food etc.... The air is so
thick with pollution now in China that you won't live to see the age of 50.
The workers have no safety protection, the Government is..... well no need
to state the obvious. Good luck to you all. I hope you wake up before self
destructing.

Meanwhile I would rather machine my parts with my bare hands than buy
something made in china that breaks as you take it out of the box. I do buy
stuff made in Taiwan, their stuff is awsome but this was clearly stated in
other posts.


"Sum Ting Wong" wrote in message ...

"RichK" wrote
Hi All,
Can't the Chinese make anything that will
even approach what was on the US market before?

No bashy, bashy, the Chinese. We soon to own you!

In article , "claude"
wrote:

Well Mr something is defiantly wrong.

Uh huh. Starting with your spelling, and including your ability to
comprehend humor. I hope you can machine dish sponges and dry cell
batteries and the motherboard in your computer by hand, because without
Chinese imports, the store shelves in the United States would be bare.
And I don't just mean the WalMart shelves.

Sum Ting Wong wrote:
"RichK" wrote
Hi All,
Can't the Chinese make anything that will
even approach what was on the US market before?

No bashy, bashy, the Chinese. We soon to own you!

Remember some guy by the name of...oh, let's think..."Nikita" or
something like that, wasn't it?

--

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:20:43 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article , "claude"
wrote:

Well Mr something is defiantly wrong.

Uh huh. Starting with your spelling, and including your ability to
comprehend humor. I hope you can machine dish sponges and dry cell
batteries and the motherboard in your computer by hand, because without
Chinese imports, the store shelves in the United States would be bare.
And I don't just mean the WalMart shelves.


As an aside I was watching The Antiques Road Show where what were once
US and European made knick knacks and other stuff that one would have
thrown away after they had served their purpose are now so lovingly
restored and their history researched. And worth several tousand
times their original retail value. Such everyday items of US or
European origin will no longer be be available in future. In fact
what can you identify as possible collectables outside sports cards
and celebrity posters. This is an exercise in sociology, in
contemporary history and other legit fields. Its not gloating about
"China made." That said what is happening today is evidence and data
for future sociologists and historians. What items will comprise this
evidence and therefore a valuable collectable?

"PaPaPeng" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:20:43 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article , "claude"
wrote:

Well Mr something is defiantly wrong.

Uh huh. Starting with your spelling, and including your ability to
comprehend humor. I hope you can machine dish sponges and dry cell
batteries and the motherboard in your computer by hand, because without
Chinese imports, the store shelves in the United States would be bare.
And I don't just mean the WalMart shelves.


As an aside I was watching The Antiques Road Show where what were once
US and European made knick knacks and other stuff that one would have
thrown away after they had served their purpose are now so lovingly
restored and their history researched. And worth several tousand
times their original retail value. Such everyday items of US or
European origin will no longer be be available in future. In fact
what can you identify as possible collectables outside sports cards
and celebrity posters. This is an exercise in sociology, in
contemporary history and other legit fields. Its not gloating about
"China made." That said what is happening today is evidence and data
for future sociologists and historians. What items will comprise this
evidence and therefore a valuable collectable?

I hope you're not trying to imply that a 50 year old Zenith round-tube TV,
an Osborne Computer, a Chevy Vega, Sunbeam toaster or a Bulova Accutron will
someday become valuable antiques. AFAIK the valuable antiques are those
which were special in some way -- limited production or availability,
extraordinary characteristics, high craftsmanship, have a historical
relationship, etc. As an analogy, an original GTO is valuable, a Pontiac
Ventura of the same year, from the same production line, is just a clapped
out old car. I'd differentiate between antiques and fads. Well made
Victorian furniture is an antique. Collections of Coke bottles, comic
books, baseball cards or Barbie dolls are fads.

Future collectibles will be the same things that are valuable collectables
now and have been for decades --

-- Good furniture
-- Good pottery
-- Good artwork
-- One-of-a-kind items of high craftsmanship

Chinese pottery is valuable the world over, and they continue to produce
expensive and high quality products that will retain their value because of
their craftsmanship. Mae Ping pottery comes to mind. High thread count
silk carpets are another example. There are already highly collectible
artworks by Chinese artists, but most Westerners haven't the experience to
recognize the style or artist names -- but they sell for thousands of
dollars in the Chinese art market.

Another post commented on the low wages paid in China. What they missed is
that the savings rate for Chinese workers is 20% -- they tuck away 20% on
the average of their wages. So maybe their wages are in line with their
environment -- Regards --

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:44:29 -0500, "JimR" wrote:


Future collectibles will be the same things that are valuable collectables
now and have been for decades --

-- Good furniture
-- Good pottery
-- Good artwork
-- One-of-a-kind items of high craftsmanship

Chinese pottery is valuable the world over, and they continue to produce
expensive and high quality products that will retain their value because of
their craftsmanship. Mae Ping pottery comes to mind. High thread count
silk carpets are another example. There are already highly collectible
artworks by Chinese artists, but most Westerners haven't the experience to
recognize the style or artist names -- but they sell for thousands of
dollars in the Chinese art market.


Good art and good crafts will always have their own following. But
they are pricey and don't really fit into the average plebeian home.
For myself I am not into collecting artifacts for investment or even
for admiring. The items in the Antiques Road Show that really
fascinate me are the everyday household items that have an interesting
history. Western stuff are not my heritage but I have similar
feelings for ordinary items of my Oriental crafts and we have our own
idea of valued collectable pre mass production knick knacks.

For example (my made up story), this is a maple sap collecting
maplewood bucket that was made around the turn of the nineteenth
centruy in Vermont by The Sugarplum Fairy factory. We can tell
because there is a Tinkerbell logo on the bottom of the bucket and the
patina on the wood is consistent with that period. These buckets were
produced from 1910 to 1940 when the manufacturers switched to cheaper
plastic. Include story about Maple syrup production and processing,
etc. This bucket is in excellent condition and contains enough
evidence that it was actually used to collect syrup. The patina is
georgeous and will make an excellent conversation piece in any home.
Blah, blah, blah. Try that spiel with a plastic Made in China bucket
from Wally's.

As for [50 year old Zenith round-tube TV, an Osborne Computer] the old
wall-mount crank handle telephones and even more modern 'built like a
tank' bakelite dail tone telephones are collectors' items now. A
quick search on eBay will surprise you as to what people value as
collectables. But somehow I still can't picture a Made in China item
from Wally's making it into the shelves of collectables. There is no
local or Euro-centric content, a history of some (American) worthy
turning the raw material into a popular product that reflected the
life of their times. And this brings back my original musings about
the loss of heritage aritfacts, aka nostalgic collectables.


Another post commented on the low wages paid in China. What they missed is
that the savings rate for Chinese workers is 20% -- they tuck away 20% on
the average of their wages. So maybe their wages are in line with their
environment -- Regards --

What is happening in China today is truly astounding and equally
incomprehensible. Except that it works and the results
incontrovertible. Yup. They cost me my jobs, many times too, except
I made it to retirement in one piece. I am proud for China can at
last work for her advancement in peace and take its place among the
leading nations of the world. This can't be comforting for the rest
of the world that has to accommodate this development. I have no easy
answers to that.

As for the current thread on shoddy and toxic China made goods it will
pass just as past accusations of China in other areas had passed
before. It is product safety ignorance and not a conscious effort to
cut corners to make the extra buck. These oversights are easily
corrected. The competiton is far too intense not to respond to
customer demands promptly whether at the regulatory level or on the
production floor. It will not be a hot election issue by the time the
Presidential election comes around.

In article ,
PaPaPeng wrote:



As for [50 year old Zenith round-tube TV, an Osborne Computer] the old
wall-mount crank handle telephones and even more modern 'built like a
tank' bakelite dail tone telephones are collectors' items now. A
quick search on eBay will surprise you as to what people value as
collectables. But somehow I still can't picture a Made in China item
from Wally's making it into the shelves of collectables. There is no
local or Euro-centric content, a history of some (American) worthy
turning the raw material into a popular product that reflected the
life of their times. And this brings back my original musings about
the loss of heritage aritfacts, aka nostalgic collectables.
Collectables, at least within the Western and especially the North
American context is often more related to childhood than anything else.
Heck look at the money you can get for old lunch pails today from the
Baby Boomer's who grew up on them. Dolls are good, too. Many of these
could very well be Wally World China related in the next decades. Most
collectables are not the heavy oak furniture, etc.


What is happening in China today is truly astounding and equally
incomprehensible. Except that it works and the results
incontrovertible. Yup. They cost me my jobs, many times too, except
I made it to retirement in one piece. I am proud for China can at
last work for her advancement in peace and take its place among the
leading nations of the world. This can't be comforting for the rest
of the world that has to accommodate this development. I have no easy
answers to that.
I think wealth tends to moderate the desire to go about and
steal things. First of all, barring meglomania on the part of the
rulers, you don't tend to do things that take money out of your own
pocket and even the Chinese government knows the advantage of letting a
sleeping peasant lie.
My longer-term concern with the Chinese center on the demographic
outcomes of the one-child laws. Admittedly, when there are a few billion
people floating around a country, you do have a few to "give", but as
the last "real" generation retires, what happens when there are so many
fewer to support them. The other side of that is the high percentage of
males, nothing worse than a bunch of horny males having problems finding
a mate (g).
Both of these might trigger governmental "adventurisim" as both a
solution and a way to shift blame away from the Men Behind the Curtain.


As for the current thread on shoddy and toxic China made goods it will
pass just as past accusations of China in other areas had passed
before. It is product safety ignorance and not a conscious effort to
cut corners to make the extra buck. These oversights are easily
corrected. The competiton is far too intense not to respond to
customer demands promptly whether at the regulatory level or on the
production floor. It will not be a hot election issue by the time the
Presidential election comes around.

Went through the same stuff in the 60s and 70s with Japan
(from shoddy goods, to balance of payments, etc. etc. etc.) and this
will pass.

PaPaPeng wrote:
....

As for the current thread on shoddy and toxic China made goods it will
pass just as past accusations of China in other areas had passed
before. It is product safety ignorance and not a conscious effort to
cut corners to make the extra buck. These oversights are easily
corrected. ...

Oh, really? Just simple ignorance?

That wouldn't seem to be the story of Zheng Xiaoyu...

--

My spelling is pretty good considering that I am not an English person. I
only speak English so Americans can understand me ( joke) and to be able to
fully appreciate the priceless info in this group. Also note Mr humour that
I purposely wrote defiant instead of definitely. The humour in this was
probably lost on you so I won't stoop down to your level. Now if you where
referring to the bombing statement well sure it was meant in jest but
unfortunately it seems to be a little too true of the American way of
solving problems.

Anyhow no need to reply because I think that the basis of your statement is
correct, most stores would be thread bare *. We can now go back to fixing
and renovating.

* With a caveat, Germany barely imports Chinese junk or anything from
anywhere, they make everything they need and everyone buys German made. I am
not particularly found of their way of life in general but this is one thing
they do right.


"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article , "claude"
wrote:

Well Mr something is defiantly wrong.

Uh huh. Starting with your spelling, and including your ability to
comprehend humor. I hope you can machine dish sponges and dry cell
batteries and the motherboard in your computer by hand, because without
Chinese imports, the store shelves in the United States would be bare.
And I don't just mean the WalMart shelves.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:31:21 -0600, dpb wrote:

PaPaPeng wrote:
...

As for the current thread on shoddy and toxic China made goods it will
pass just as past accusations of China in other areas had passed
before. It is product safety ignorance and not a conscious effort to
cut corners to make the extra buck. These oversights are easily
corrected. ...

Oh, really? Just simple ignorance?

That wouldn't seem to be the story of Zheng Xiaoyu...

Considering that the US trade is 232.5 billion dollars in China favor
for 2006, much more for this year, there must be a lot that is right.
The recalls, etc. don't even amount to a billion dollars, less than 4
per cent.

http://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html
Table 1: China's Trade with the United States ($ billion)
Note: US exports reported on FOB basis; imports on a general customs
value, CIF basis
Sources: US International Trade Commission, US Department of Commerce,
and US Census Bureau
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
US Exports 11.8 12.0 12.8 14.3 13.1 16.3 19.2 22.1 28.4 34.7 41.8
55.2
% change 26.9 1.7 6.7 10.9 -8.0 24.4 18.3 15.1 28.5 22.2 20.6 32.0
US Imports 45.6 51.5 62.6 71.2 81.8 100.0 102.3 125.2 152.4 196.7
243.5 287.8
% change 17.5 13.0 21.5 13.8 14.9 22.3 2.2 22.4 21.7 29.1 23.8 18.2
Total 57.4 63.5 75.4 85.5 94.9 116.3 121.5 147.3 180.8 231.4 285.3
343.0
% change 19.3 10.6 18.7 13.4 11.0 22.6 21.4 21.2 22.8 28.0 23.3 20.2
US Balance -33.8 -39.5 -49.8 -56.9 -68.7 -83.7 -83.0 -103.1 -124.0
-162.0 -201.6 -232.5


That wouldn't seem to be the story of Zheng Xiaoyu...

His case preceded the US dispute on Chinese goods by at least two
years. He was negligent in supervising his department. Fake baby
formula that had no nutritional value that killed a number of infants
and damaged the health of many more. Fake drugs that have no
therapeutic value, etc. All this happened inside China and did not
involve any exports. He was found guilty of corruption, a capital
crime in China at his level (as Head of drug approval agency, and
nothing to do with consumer goods exports.) His execution coincided
with the the hysteria over tainted exports to the US. There was
nothing to be gained by the Chinese government to bring out these
facts. Zheng certainly wasn't railroaded nor was he a sacrificial
goat to appease American concerns.

Anyway, as many have pointed out, its your money and your decision.
Buy only what satisfies you. I don't buy junk either China made or
not.

The reason why American importers haven't sued their Chinese suppliers
is because the importers are the ones who designed and specified the
products they carry in their stores. The Chinese haven't exported
directly to the US to promote their own brands or products thus
dodging ultimate responsibility. The Chinese are contract
manufacturers who make to specs. Things like no lead in paint wasn't
specified and QA missed the mistake made by sub contractors who did
the painting. This won't happen again as the problem of product
safety was taken up at the Minister's level and appropriate laws
passed plus an industry wide education program. One doesn't want to
kill one's customers through caelessness.

There will be the inevitable criminal case as in
WIKI
[Danger of contamination with diethylene glycol
On May 4, 2007, the US Food and Drug Administration advised
all US makers of medicines to test all batches of glycerine for the toxic diethylene glycol.[10]
This follows an occurrence of 100 fatal poisonings in Panama resulting from
a Chinese factory deliberately falsifying records in order to export the cheaper diethylene glycol
as the more expensive glycerol.[11] Glycerine and diethylene glycol are similar in appearance, smell, and taste.
The US Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed following the 1937
"Elixir Sulfanilamide" incident of poisoning caused by diethylene glycol contamination of medicine.]

an event that happened in the US too.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:34:18 GMT, still just me
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:05:32 -0500, "claude" wrote:

China is in it's lawlessness phase where they will use glycol ethylene to
sweeten toothpaste, lead in the paint used on kid's toys, deadly cooking
oils, exploding beer bottles, melamine in pet food etc....

Hey, what's your beef? There are American companies and their CEO's
making a bundle off this stuff. Jesus H... next you'll be complaining
that we shouldn't grant Most Favorite trace status to countries that
have oppressive regimes that are the exact opposite of what we are
supposed to stand for.

Keep buying Citgo gas, too.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiricy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PaPaPeng wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:31:21 -0600, dpb wrote:

PaPaPeng wrote:
...

As for the current thread on shoddy and toxic China made goods it will
pass just as past accusations of China in other areas had passed
before. It is product safety ignorance and not a conscious effort to
cut corners to make the extra buck. These oversights are easily
corrected. ...
Oh, really? Just simple ignorance?

That wouldn't seem to be the story of Zheng Xiaoyu...

Considering that the US trade is 232.5 billion dollars in China favor
for 2006, much more for this year, there must be a lot that is right.

....

There's clearly a lot that isn't as well, and to contend it is "only
ignorance" is such an obvious turning a blind eye as to make the attempt
to cover it over w/ statistics simply ludicrous.

It's nice to know Zheng was alone in paying himself and all is now well
and, like Iran has no individuals of a particular bent, China now has
now eliminated all traces of greed and corruption. That _is_ a
remarkable achievement in such a short period of time. I simply had no
idea how easy it would be.

plonk

--

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:56:52 -0600, dpb wrote:


As for the current thread on shoddy and toxic China made goods it will
pass just as past accusations of China in other areas had passed
before. It is product safety ignorance and not a conscious effort to
cut corners to make the extra buck. These oversights are easily
corrected. ...
Oh, really? Just simple ignorance?

That wouldn't seem to be the story of Zheng Xiaoyu...

Considering that the US trade is 232.5 billion dollars in China favor
for 2006, much more for this year, there must be a lot that is right.

...

There's clearly a lot that isn't as well, and to contend it is "only
ignorance" is such an obvious turning a blind eye as to make the attempt
to cover it over w/ statistics simply ludicrous.


There is a fundamental problem with your line of reasoning, an
assumption that an individual's acts are that significant. Neither
anything you or I say will make one whit of difference on how the
world behaves. I don't attach any personal feelings to events I agree
or disagree with and have no possibility of encountering in person.
The direction you are heading will be the loony bin for the hopping
mad. The direction the Chinese will be heading is straight to the
bank. Your separate paths will never intersect . So who cares.

It's nice to know Zheng was alone in paying himself and all is now well
and, like Iran has no individuals of a particular bent, China now has
now eliminated all traces of greed and corruption. That _is_ a
remarkable achievement in such a short period of time. I simply had no
idea how easy it would be.

plonk


I simply had no idea.

Exactly. The way the world is is everyone does what they will do
anyway. Your neighbors will continue to shop at Wally's. China will
continue its merry way poroducing junk and wondering how to redeploy
its growing enormous pile of depreciating US dollars. The US will
continue to stumble from one mess to the next. The best we can do is
to figure out what in the world is happening and hope we don't get run
over by a bus.

Be careful with that ticker of tours. Lucky for you America has the
best and most advanced medical technology in the universe - if you can
still afford it.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:56:52 -0600, dpb wrote:

There's clearly a lot that isn't as well, and to contend it is "only
ignorance" is such an obvious turning a blind eye as to make the attempt
to cover it over w/ statistics simply ludicrous.

Here's an early Christmas good cheer for you. Shoddy Chinese goods
ain't it.

==================================



Christmas is less than a month away. People's minds are not receptive
to bad news. While not exactly bad news the shift of ownership of key
American assets has already begun. By the time America wakes up after
the holiday season the world will have changed or at least started on
fundamental change and a realignment of global power.

The coming together in the same span of months of major domestic and
global events does not bode well for the US. First there is the
Iraq-Afghan war that is not going well. The wars bleed blood and
considerable treasure, causes division, dissention and distraction in
American society. This will continue until at least the new
President takes office on January 2009. A lame duck President can at
best hope that nothing untoward blows up in his face in his remaining
time in office. He can no longer effect let alone direct affairs of
his nation. In the meantime the US and western banking-financial
system is in for unknown but colossal losses of between 500 billion to
over a trillion dollars in toto. These three are already enough
calamities withiut having to dig up more.
=========================================

Selling the US by the dollar
By Julian Delasantellis
November 29, 2007
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_.../IK29Dj01.html

Precisely as I have been predicting since mid-August, foreign
state-owned investment pools, sovereign wealth funds (SWVs), have now
commenced the process of riding to the rescue of the poor, weakened,
self-mutilated US financial system.

I hate to be smug and tell you "I told you so." Ah, come on, who am I
trying to kid? I absolutely love to be able to say that, just as much
as the next boorish preening pundit.

It was announced prior to the opening of trading on Tuesday that the
Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the world's largest SWF, was paying
US$7.5 billion to buy a 4.9% stake in Citigroup, the largest financial
institution in the United States. Citigroup, facing what the markets
fear may amount to a $30 billion or more hit on its capital base due
to its problems with subprime mortgages and associated derivative
financial products, recently had its chief executive officer, Charles
O Prince, fall on his sword in an effort to satisfy the mobs of angry
shareholders. This did little to assuage the howling furies; they're
still lashing the company, with sell orders whipping off their
computer mice. The stock is down over 45% this year, almost 25% this
month.

Citigroup did rally on the news, but the price move was far from
anything all that impressive - the stock rose about 1.75%.

Citigroup's rescue did not come cheap. The deal was structured in the
form of convertible securities that will require the company to pay
junk-bond levels of coupon interest, reported by Barron's to be close
to 11%, for the privilege of selling part of America's premier
consumer financial institution into foreign hands.

For me, the most surprising, and possibly the most upsetting thing
about the Citigroup news was the absolutely orgiastic reaction to it.
The general media, of course, saw this only in the context of
something that would cause the stock market to go up, so it must be
good. (Dead white American suburban young women = bad, rising stock
prices = good; it's not that hard to be a US TV news producer these
days.) The Dow Jones Industrial Average opened strong, gave up most of
its gains midday, then was rallying into the close to finish up 215, a
fairly average price change these days.

If the electronic media are now history's first draft, then, to judge
by the reaction of the on-air personnel on business cable channel
CNBC, America has just had its best day since the famous New York City
Times Square victory celebrations at the end of World War II.

All day long the smooth and clean faces of CNBC shone happy and
bright, overjoyed that, just as the losses in the Dow in the past two
months had reached the psychologically important 10% level the
previous day, at last a savior had arisen. Surely, almost as if the
financial markets had become a sort of children's holiday pageant, the
Abu Dhabi Investment Authority was a modern John the Baptist,
proclaiming the good news of imminent salvation, namely, lots more
foreign SWF money to refloat America's sagging markets, economy and
spirits.

Defying any and all naysayers, CNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan summed up the
Good News for modern traders:
At the end of the day, though, we could spend four hours talking about
all the terrible things that could potentially still happen, today's a
good day - $7.5 billion for the banking system came in, for better or
worse. Granted its only 1% of all the money in Abu Dhabi, granted that
there could be future writedowns, but at the end of the day, $7.5
billion is a lot of money.
Of course, what's going out as the $7.5 billion comes in is the
shining jewel called ownership. The origins of Citigroup go back to
the founding of the City Bank of New York in 1812. Over these past 195
years, the institution has been carefully built and nurtured, and its
prosperity has enriched countless thousands of American stockholders.
That wealth creation, as it circulated around and across the American
economy, also enriched the American community as a whole.

Then comes the first decade of the 21st century. Citigroup goes for
the gusto, grabs for the brass ring, reaches out for the fat,
seemingly riskless returns being offered by a new generation of
subprime mortgage derivative products. This experiment goes horribly
wrong for Citigroup, as it has for much of the US financial system.

Citigroup then has a choice, as does the rest of the financial system,
as does the rest of the country. Accept a year or two of diminished
earnings, dividends and prosperity, until the entire subprime thing
works its way through and out of the financial system, or sell out and
attempt to once again live the good life that much sooner.

The cost? The cost, of course, is that in the future commensurately
fewer Americans will be enjoying the fruits of ownership that have
accrued through the hard work, enterprise and ingenuity of this
two-century-old venture.

As has been proven so many times in the recent past, from America's
budget and trade deficits to its crumbling infrastructure, its
appallingly dysfunctional primary and secondary school system, its
non-existent savings rate, and the total diffidence with which it
approaches the global environmental impact of its prosperity, this is
a country that looks at the prospect of any pain or inconvenience in
the present with such boundless levels of abhorrence that it is more
than willing to satisfy its heroin-like addiction to immediate
gratification with sales of any or all of its national heirlooms.

A comparable absurdity would be Americans selling their houses and
forever being renters in order to gain the requisite funds to, in the
newly sacrosanct modern tradition, line up at big box electronic
retailers in the cold early hours of the morning after Thanksgiving.

Wait a minute. As a matter of fact, that's precisely what the
Americans who took out home equity loans to spend away the appreciated
wealth locked up in their homes have done. It's no wonder that
Citigroup doing the same thing looks so normal.

In essence, in commencing the process of selling away America's
remarkably innovative and profitable financial system, the country
will now be paying a rent, in the form of the profits accruing to Abu
Dhabi and the other SWF buyers that must surely follow its lead, equal
to what it once collected for itself.

A recent survey of students at New York University revealed that two
thirds of them were willing to sell away their right to vote in
exchange for next year's tuition (which is over $47,000 for tuition,
room and board - at least the youngsters are not selling themselves
cheap); half said that they'd be willing to forever forfeit their
franchise for a cool million dollars.

Middle-aged power pundits and basic cable savants were aghast, oh
dear, what has become of the values of the young?

But in reality, weren't the little tykes at New York University just,
as children are wont to do at any age, imitating their parents, in
that everything timeless and hard-won, sacred and cherished, can and
should eventually be bartered away for a current comfortable price?

One thing about Abu Dhabi's investment that seemed to particularly
please the pretty CNBC on-air faces was their speculation that
Citigroup's stock dividend, worth currently about 8% of the stock's
market price, might now be that much more safe from a possible cut.

Well, there's good news. It means that America's legions of
coupon-clipping Paris Hilton wannabes will thus be more likely to be
spared the soul-extirpating experience of shopping at Rodeo Drive
rather than Macy's this holiday season.

Take care, wherever you are. Even if Paris Hilton still hasn't got her
driver's license back, by any means necessary America is getting its
money back; the practical effect is just about the same.

Julian Delasantellis is a management consultant, private investor and
educator in international business in the US state of Washington. He
can be reached at

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:37:42 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

What is happening in China today is truly astounding and equally
incomprehensible. Except that it works and the results
incontrovertible. Yup. They cost me my jobs, many times too, except
I made it to retirement in one piece. I am proud for China can at
last work for her advancement in peace and take its place among the
leading nations of the world. This can't be comforting for the rest
of the world that has to accommodate this development. I have no easy
answers to that.
I think wealth tends to moderate the desire to go about and
steal things. First of all, barring meglomania on the part of the
rulers, you don't tend to do things that take money out of your own
pocket and even the Chinese government knows the advantage of letting a
sleeping peasant lie.

I will let these argument lie too as they will take too much effort
and time and won't change anyone's position.

My longer-term concern with the Chinese center on the demographic
outcomes of the one-child laws. Admittedly, when there are a few billion
people floating around a country, you do have a few to "give",

[Total fertility rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[1] Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33
children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would trend
towards zero. ...]. Therefore China's one child policy should see a
steady reduction in population. Yet official statements say that with
forceful enforcement of the one child policy China's population could
hopefully stabilize at 1.5 billions by 2035!

When the communists won power (1949) China's population was 400 to 450
millions. Until the eighties famines and food shortage were everyday
realities. I won't even try to reconcile the figures much less attempt
to explain China's demographics. But it means there will be no
relaxation of birth control. One slip and China will be overwhelmed
and the world will not remain unaffected.

but as the last "real" generation retires, what happens when there are so many
fewer to support them.

So what paradise on earth was there for the eldery before the
Communists took over?

One traditional solution was to organize homes for the elderly along
clan and language dialect groups. Those who do not have families or
children join them for a small membership fee. The members usually
have some form of employment income, for example as housemaids,
farmhands, etc. On their off days or when unemployed they can stay in
the hospice and help out with chores and take care of the older
retired members until their own turn comes to retire. The hospice
also took in the sick and elderly whose family can no longer care for
them. They provide shelter and comfort and what little medical care
there is based on traditional herbal remedies. There is no attempt to
prolong life. This system is still a common practice. The less old
and still mobile take care of the less capable and the sick until they
too join their ranks. There is government financial and medical
assistance under the CCP but it will never be enough to emulate
anything like the independent living ideal of western societies. The
system works well enough though.

The other side of that is the high percentage of
males, nothing worse than a bunch of horny males having problems finding
a mate (g).

China has gone through worse, the decade long wars, famines, all
manner of natural and man made disasters. She'll make it through.
Read any of the biographies of Chinese immigrant labor in the States
in the 19th and into the mid 20th century. They came alone and toiled
under horrendous conditions. They went home once to marry
(prearranged), had a child and never saw them again. But continued to
remit money back for their support. It should be an intolerable
existence. Yet they triumphed in the end. Today's single men do not
have to endure what their forefathers did. I don't have any valid
comment on what will happen with them. But one alarming consequence
is the spread of AIDS and STDs that the public health authorities have
not have a good handle on yet.

There are many significant developments happening at the same time in
China today. Little if any of them follow familiar economic,
sociological or political conventions and therefore offer few clues on
which to make predictions Americans call this "lack of transparency".
The truth is the Chinese don't know what is happening any more than
they do. But as DXP so famously said "to cross the river by feeling
for stones" China will work its way through to the future one careful
step at a time. Do not judge China by your tired patronizing
attitudes. China has enough development problems of her own without
your trying to add yours to that burden, such as......

Both of these might trigger governmental "adventurisim" as both a
solution and a way to shift blame away from the Men Behind the Curtain.

On Nov 25, 8:45 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

That's $1/day, not $1/hr.

Still a good income. I'll bet they save plenty, in a short amount of
time to pay for college, or to start their own business.

Some do. $1/day is FAR (like five to ten times) more than they were making.

What they do is the whole family works, pools their money, and sends one of
their sons to the U.S. Once he arrives, he gets an off-the-books job and
earns enough in one or two years to bring the whole family over.

They, in turn, work hard and the next generation all go to Cal-Tech.

Sounds just like Americans? The 'American Dream' so called. It is the
aim of most people in this world to earn enough to bring up their
family and themselves. To rise out of poverty etc.

Reminds of a group of young Sri Lankan men we met in 2005, recruited
to work in S.Korea. Some of them spoke good English and were excited
with the expecatation of earning $1000 a month to work for an unknown
number of hours per week in auto factories. Minus some deductions
probably. Then sending money home to their families. Smart young men
they were. If we ever buy a KIA or a Hyundai maybe one of them will
have assembled it?

In article ,
PaPaPeng wrote:

Exactly. The way the world is is everyone does what they will do
anyway. Your neighbors will continue to shop at Wally's. China will
continue its merry way poroducing junk and wondering how to redeploy
its growing enormous pile of depreciating US dollars. The US will
continue to stumble from one mess to the next. The best we can do is
to figure out what in the world is happening and hope we don't get run
over by a bus.
And then, in a couple of years, will start complaining about how
the strengthened dollar is hurting them. That is why they call it a
cycle.


Be careful with that ticker of tours. Lucky for you America has the
best and most advanced medical technology in the universe - if you can
still afford it.

As opposed to last generation (if lucky) medical tech elsewhere if you
can actually survive long enough to work your way to the front of the
line.

In article ,
PaPaPeng wrote:



When the communists won power (1949) China's population was 400 to 450
millions. Until the eighties famines and food shortage were everyday
realities. I won't even try to reconcile the figures much less attempt
to explain China's demographics. But it means there will be no
relaxation of birth control. One slip and China will be overwhelmed
and the world will not remain unaffected.
The root of the problem, probably.



but as the last "real" generation retires, what happens when there are so
many
fewer to support them.

So what paradise on earth was there for the eldery before the
Communists took over?

What is there now? The demographics that we are seeing in the US with
baby boomers will be repeated in China soon, with the extra added
problems of fewer citizens meaning that they will probably lose a lot of
the edge in cheapness because of fewer people available for the same
amount of jobs, let alone any expansion over the years.


there is based on traditional herbal remedies. There is no attempt to
prolong life. This system is still a common practice. The less old
and still mobile take care of the less capable and the sick until they
too join their ranks. There is government financial and medical
assistance under the CCP but it will never be enough to emulate
anything like the independent living ideal of western societies. The
system works well enough though.

For now. But again, what happens when there are many fewer workers
supporting many more retirees.



The other side of that is the high percentage of
males, nothing worse than a bunch of horny males having problems finding
a mate (g).

China has gone through worse, the decade long wars, famines, all
manner of natural and man made disasters. She'll make it through.
I am worrying about the possibility of China deciding to get a
little more rowdy because of the m/f demographics and this is what you
try to assure me with

There are many significant developments happening at the same time in
China today. Little if any of them follow familiar economic,
sociological or political conventions and therefore offer few clues on
which to make predictions Americans call this "lack of transparency".
Or whistling past the graveyard. We have ample experience what
happens when the rocket scientists think they have new paradigms that
make the old ways obsolete and the old rules no longer in force.
Although, as can be seen by the subprime mortgage hooha and the tech
bubble, we don't seem to learn from earlier mistakes. Hope your guys do
better.

The truth is the Chinese don't know what is happening any more than
they do. But as DXP so famously said "to cross the river by feeling
for stones" China will work its way through to the future one careful
step at a time. Do not judge China by your tired patronizing
attitudes. China has enough development problems of her own without
your trying to add yours to that burden, such as......

Both of these might trigger governmental "adventurisim" as both a
solution and a way to shift blame away from the Men Behind the Curtain.


Even China's own history is full of many examples of this. Let
alone the tendencies of human governments in general to stir things up
when things get tough at home.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:08:00 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

And then, in a couple of years, will start complaining about how
the strengthened dollar is hurting them. That is why they call it a
cycle.


This timely book review pretty much sumarises the West's attitude on
China. I'll comment on the other points raised in this thread on
China later.


BOOK REVIEW
An over-traveled road
China Road by Rob Gifford
December 1, 2007 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IL01Ad01.html

Reviewed by Dinah Gardner

Former US network National Public Radio correspondent for Beijing Rob
Gifford was sitting on a bus trundling across China's western Gansu
province when he found out the woman sitting across from him is an
abortionist. Her job was to uphold China's one-child policy. She
performed operations, sometimes forced, on women who were pregnant
with their second child. Sometimes, even into the third trimester.

Gifford was appalled and then kicked himself for not jumping off the
bus after she disembarked to ask her to confirm a rumor he heard about
the drowning of aborted fetuses that were still alive after
termination.

He used this encounter to illustrate his point, reinforced at length
throughout China Road, that Beijing has no respect for human rights.
But herein lies the weakness in what is, in every other way, a very
vivid and lively piece of reportage. Gifford frequently lets moral
outrage color his arguments. In his exchange with the abortionist, for
example, he doesn't give the reader any context.

Without added nuances the woman on the bus seems heinous and the
Chinese government pure evil. Yet China is cripplingly overpopulated
and the one child policy, it can be argued, shows responsibility and
far-sightedness. He also doesn't explain that abortions are not the
moral minefield in China that they are in the West and that the
practice of forced abortions, while alleged to happen in some areas,
is officially illegal.

China Road, is Gifford's swansong to the People's Republic. After
reporting from Beijing for NPR for six years, his final act before
leaving the country was to make the trek along Route 312 which
stretches almost 5,000 kilometers from Shanghai in the east to the
border with Kazakhstan in the western region of Xinjiang.

Along the way, he covered a lot of ground, and not that's not just in
kilometers. He used interviews with people he met on the way - a mad
medley of characters from the abortionist on the bus to a jilted
karaoke escort girl to an earnest group of Amway salesmen he stumbles
across in the middle of the Gobi Desert - to paint a picture of
China's possible future.

"Is China heading for greatness or implosion?" he asks. Is it destined
for 21st century superpowerdom or a collapse, Soviet style? In the
end, Gifford isn't really sure. He gives arguments in support of both
but one precursor for Chinese success, is, he argues, democracy. If
Beijing doesn't move to a multi-party democracy, it is doomed.

Although economic development has bought about more choices and
freedoms for people compared with their lot under the tyranny of Mao -
the "Chinese bird cage has become an aviary" - the consumer boom
hasn't reached hundreds of millions of poor rural folk, most farmers
live on less than US$40 a month, there is no health insurance, the
country is riddled with endemic corruption and there is no independent
legal system. Cracks are appearing in the country's social fabric, he
argues, pointing to a government statistic that there are now more
than 200 incidents of rural unrest a day.

But this is where Route 312 comes in. To Gifford, it symbolizes
China's one hope at achieving that superpowerdom. The road represents
mass migration €“ the biggest yet in human history - and this movement
of people is giving the population choices. It is allowing poor people
to travel to the city to look for work, and increasingly this is not
just to the wealthier eastern coast but to inland cities where the
government is pumping money into their development.

Xinjiang's regional capital, Urumqi, he says, now reminds him of Los
Angeles. In this way, wealth is trickling down, people are gaining
access to knowledge, and that is creating a new middle class that may
eventually lead to pluralism in government, he hopes.

One of the weak points in China Road is the intrusion of Gifford's
religious views. He argues that modern Chinese are floating in a moral
vacuum because Mao eradicated religion. While you can certainly argue
there is much immorality in modern China - from forced abortions to
the headlong pursuit of material gain at the expense of the
environment - it's presumptuous of Gifford to connect that with the
country's secularity. As if being godless makes people immoral.

To anyone who has lived some time in China, Gifford's book is nothing
revolutionary - the editors appear to have pruned it for a reader with
little knowledge of the country. There is a lot of background on the
Opium Wars, for instance, which is old territory for Asian pundits;
Gifford peppers his writing with pinyin Mandarin and phonetic
explanations of how to pronounce Chinese names; and some of his
encounters are nothing new to anyone who regularly reads Sunday
supplement features on the country.

There is also, perhaps also, a little too much Gifford in there. By
the end of the book you know he is a devout Christian, has a pretty
wife, is battling an expanding waistline and likes the feel of moss
and drinking low-fat lattes. Yet his writing is lively and engaging
with some very skilful imagery - six years penning radio packages has
oiled his style well. He also knits a complex situation into
perspective, albeit slightly skewed towards a western-oriented and
Christian viewpoint.

All in all China Road is a palatable and engaging vehicle that brings
modern China to life. And the fact that Gifford does not come to a
conclusion about whether the nation will sink or swim doesn't matter.
In fact, considering the number of other authors who have spun books
on their China predictions makes Gifford's humility on this count
refreshing.

China Road: A Journey into the Future of a Rising Power by Rob
Gifford. Random House (May 29, 2007) . ISBN-10: 1400064678. Price
US$26.95, 352 pages.

Dinah Gardner is a freelance journalist based in Beijing.

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:
In article , "claude"
wrote:

Well Mr something is defiantly wrong.

Uh huh. Starting with your spelling, and including your ability to

Just what is wrong with his spelling?

Seems to me he's saying exactly what he means!

Also seems to me to perfectly describe the megasized retailers
who order the stuff. "**** the customers, just so long as
I get their money!"


David

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
PaPaPeng wrote:



the last "real" generation retires, what happens when there are so many
fewer to support them.

You say you're talking about CHINA?

David

Dear PaPaPeng,

What you say in your missives on this thread are, to me,
well worth reading.

QUESTION: You have a blog or something where you do more
of this stuff?

Thanks!

David

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:39:54 +0000 (UTC), (David
Combs) wrote:

Dear PaPaPeng,

What you say in your missives on this thread are, to me,
well worth reading.

QUESTION: You have a blog or something where you do more
of this stuff?

Thanks!

David



Thanks for the compliment. I don't have a blog nor do I intend to
have one. However I post regularly to soc.culture.china and
sci.military.naval. Don't mind my occasional mischief where I just
love cranking up some people. I normally try to be informative.

In article ,
(David Combs) wrote:

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:
In article , "claude"
wrote:

Well Mr something is defiantly wrong.

Uh huh. Starting with your spelling, and including your ability to

Just what is wrong with his spelling?

Nothing, according to him. I thought he meant to say definitely, not
defiantly. He disagrees, said it was intentional. Whatever.


Seems to me he's saying exactly what he means!

Also seems to me to perfectly describe the megasized retailers
who order the stuff. "**** the customers, just so long as
I get their money!"


David