More China Moralizing--When Will It End?

The wires are once again buzzing with implicit damning of Yahoo! for helping the Chinese government prosecute critics.  At the Wall Street Journal's "D" conference, Walt Mossberg apparently asked Terry Semel about it, and Terry, admirably, answered the question (from MarketWatch).

Semel acknowledged an incident in which a Chinese blogger was arrested after authorities there tracked him down with the help of Yahoo-supplied data.

"We continue to be pissed off and are sorry about it," he said, adding that the company cooperates "as little as possible based on the laws of each country" it operates in, and tries to "push the boundaries of the law where we can" to protect its users' privacy.

Terry also provided the rationale that almost anyone in charge of a multi-national corporation would eventually arrive at--a rationale that never ceases to be ridiculed as evil, weak, and greedy by people in charge of nothing:

"What's the alternative? To walk away?" Semel asked during a sometimes testy exchange with Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Mossberg... Semel noted that China isn't the only country that forces media companies to alter their content in some way, and that the issue goes beyond Yahoo and other Internet companies.   "I don't think any one company, or even one industry, can change a country.  "Change always takes a long time. Things are better today in China" than they were 20 years ago, when he first traveled there on business, Semel said.

A month or so ago, when Google was publicly damned (again) for the same apparent sin, I asked the same question Terry asked: What is the alternative?   I would be grateful if a reader can provide a cogent, thoughtful response to this question, one that goes beyond "Just say 'no.'"  Because, in this case, "Just say 'no'" is beyond idealistic--it's vapid. 

Surely the argument is not that companies that want to operate in China should disobey Chinese laws (given that this would result in their immediately being expelled from China).  So the argument must be that operating in China under current Chinese laws is immoral and, therefore, simply not an acceptable option.  I don't agree with this--the First Amendment is a U.S. invention, not a higher moral law, and China's leaders aren't the first in history to attack people who criticize them--but I'd be eager to hear a good argument about why it is, in fact, immoral.  And I'd also like to hear a response to Terry's (true) observation that life in China is a heck of a lot better than it used to be, that sometimes the best way to improve a system is to work with it, and that more information will always be better than less.

Comments

[Neal S. Lachman]

Victor, it shows how ignorant you are. The saying that you are refering to is for the largest part borrowed from the original. You just googled it, didn't you? Instead, look in Bartlet's Quotations (print, please). You have redered yourself irrelevant.

Justaguy, ever heard of endorsements and copywriting? You are not even worth responding to.

The last few posters (China Law, Roy and Dean) have given at least real insight.

Dean, that was a great post! Worth reading.

[Still Inside]

Dean,

Your insights are not counter-intuitive at all to anybody that has a deeper understanding of the origins of western democracies. But it remains painfully true: people in the West just don't understand how incredibly advanced liberal western democracy is, how many centuries of tradition it is built upon, and how incredibly slow deep-seated instutions are to change.

And yes, our system of liberal democracy is a LOT more complicated than "free speech", and yes, it makes a lot of sense that the average citizen in China would be affected much more by many of the other freedoms envisioned in the original US constitution than free speech in particular.

But the real question is, where is China in the evolutionary timeframe? (Not to concede that a move towards capitalism is somehow "inevitable" because it's not). Is China in the 1600s where the Elightenment is just taking hold? Are they in the 1400s where they are just getting out of the dark ages? Are there a bunch of Paines and Jeffersons there now ready to sign the DoI right now? Are they in a prison somewhere?

Who knows. The Internet makes everything go faster, but I still don't believe China can overcome 1000 years of patriarchal tradition in a few decades.

Which means (back to business)...

As a government, and as a business context, China represents a very, very high-risk environment. China has no deep seated traditions in Western capitalism (i.e. contracts are God), and a leadership that remains, despite everybody's prayers and wishes to the contrary, an absolute dictatorship.

In short, the government there can tell the West to fuck off any time they feel like it.

Impossible? Suppose several high-ranking members of the Army start reading about the government's Bad Stuff (and there is a lot to read about) on the oh-so-free Internet? Suppose they start talking to their other high-ranking Army friends about doing something about it? Suppose they understand that, given the wide-spread nature of the resource they are using, an actual insurrection wouldn't be out of the question because there'd be a lot of popular support?

Suppose you were one of the current leaders there that is about ten thousand times more paranoid than any of us are?

Are these paranoid leaders (whose life is literally on the line) going to a) concede that their time is over, and it's of to the gulag for them because they should do the best thing for their country? or b) send in the secret police to clamp down on the problem, and unplug the reforms for a few more decades while they study the problem some more.

In short, I continue to be stunned and amazed how people in the West think that the dictators running China are the Board of Directors at IBM.

The reality is that these dictators are on another planet, and they don't care about silly little things like profits, "falling behind" (behind what?) or even the welfare of their people per se. They are dictators, and care about the only thing dictators are supposed to care about: remaining dictators. If this capitalist stuff works ok for now then fine. If they get an inkling that it doesn't, then they'll shut it down, and they aren't going to give a crap about the broken dreams of a few million of their own people.

As such, my own case against China is not moralizing per se, it's that I wouldn't send any of my own hard-earned money there because it could all be lost in an instant, and any IP you send there could be cloned and resold faster than you can say "Authentic Louis Vuitton Hand Bag, only $9.95".

A more concrete example?

Google's search optimizing algorithms are kept incredibly secret so that every spammer on earth won't reverse engineer it and flood the Google search engine with spam (and thus diminish their ad revenue upside drastically). Who do you suppose is guarding that secret source code right now at the offices of Google China? What if security manager in question has a cousin in the government?

I can make up thousands of examples that are all based on the same premise: that China is not a western democracy (far, far from it despite any surface-level "progress" that has been made), and as such presents a risk profile for operating in that country that is nearly prohibitive for most companies, and generally crazy for technology companies that rely on IP for their very existence.

As such, public companies operating in China should be discounted heavily to account for the increased risk to the worldwide business. In other words, GOOG+China=380, GOOG-China=480.

If people understood all of that, then all of the rest of the issues would fall into place.

SI

[joe]

SI,

should the global economy just stop? everything we do is done on a basis of probability. determining the risk vs. reward, and hoping the good far out strips the bad.

your argument can be applied to everything we do in life. You are not going to stop investing in the market because one day a massive hedge fund just feels like exiting the particular security you own for no reason. While possible, and very much in the fund's capability, it is unlikely, unless there is a catalyst.

and no wall street will not discount the way you r suggesting. potential for higher growth = higher perimum in stock price. (you know this)

[Neal S. Lachman]

SI,

That's an incredibly well-put case. I enjoyed reading it.

The fact is, like Joe responds to you, that there is a choice to be made by big business. It is highly unlikely that what-if scenarios can dampen the desires of shareholders and investors who demand that Google or Yahoo or even Tommy Hilfiger and Louis Vuitton enters into the Chinese market.

The sheer attraction of this huge consumer market makes up for many of the what-if and dooms-day scenarios. We have to keep the risk-versus-reward model in mind when entering markets such as China.

There is a movie in the theaters now, "An Inconvenient Truth", that warns us that the way we are heading soon our dear planet will be lost to the water demons. We'll all be snorkeling if not drowning. But hey, shall we stop building skyscrapers, mega-malls, schools and day-care centers? Nopes, as Joe below you said, "the economy and life goes on".

Also, do not forget what long-term pain the people in China and India inflict upon themselves in terms of corruption. It is the most heinous crime to the economy and thus livelyhood when seen from a long-term prospective and perspective. In China and the USA -or all other welfare states and countries for that matter- people choose to live by the day and continue to screw up the economy (spending much much more than we earn, borrowing thus creating mega-risks on a macro-economic level), and we continue to screw up the environment (too many examples to list here).

One thing is clear - if we believe in what we see and experience humanity (let alone world economy) is doomed anyway because of corruption, war, poverty, over-consumption and toxic gasses. Yet, in order to prevent doomsday to come (delay it to later rather than sooner) we cannot do anything but try to minimize our devastating impacts on humanity, habitat, and economy which we cause by our greed, desires, and habits.

[Martin]

Henry,
I think the answer would be for Yahoo to pre-empt any violation of Chinese law by policing its own users. Somewhat like the policy we had in the Liberal Arts College I attended. Sure under-age (below 21) drinking is against the law but as anyone knows, every 18 year old freshman with the desire to drink can easily get his hands on alcohol. Given that the college council purchased alcohol for campus parties and events, the administration had a dedicated security team that handled alcohol violations internally- mostly just confiscating the alcohol and a wag of the finger. Of course they could have turned around and reported violations such as adults purchasing alcohol for minors to the police but they did not. During one of the conversations I shared with the College President, he told me he felt the drinking age should be 18 and finds it ridiculous that it is 21.
The point behind my long-winded and loosely based analogy is that Yahoo should have some sort of internal reviewers that spot legal infractions and correct or take them down, rather than leave them online for the Chinese government to pick up on leading to the inevitable subpoena and bad publicity. That said, this approach would leave yahoo open to critics charging the company for censoring political speech on their blogs- but you can't win 'em all and I see this as the lesser of the two evils.

[Neal S. Lachman]

Haha, Henry, That was neither SI nor I posting those stuff.

It was funny tho. They even had you!

[Henry Blodget]

I'm going to ding comments supposedly written by me that weren't, and if there are others getting the same treatment, please let me know.

[Still Inside]

Joe,

There are hundreds of securities from emerging markets all over the world that are drastically undervalued compared to companies with similar growth and prospects here in the US. The market does take politics into account (it's common sense, and there are too many smoking craters around to ignore).

And yes, it all comes down to the risk profile. Every stock you buy--and yes, everything you do in life--comes down to that. Why should picking investments be any different?

Now, it's true that there are many stupid "investors" out there that are essentially gambling like they would in Las Vegas. Like the person that puts all of their money 7 Red because the payout is so potentially large, many will buy stocks simply for their upside potential, ignoring the risk.

I'm not up on my Wall Street lingo these days, but I think the technical term for this kind of investor is, "moron". They are not a long-term factor in any market.

Smart investors (big and small) will look at the whole context of a security and judge the pros and cons accordingly along with the price.

My thesis above was that China is not being adequately discounted for the political risk it currently portends.

For instance, GOOG's risk profile (extreme as it already is) drastically increases by being in China, and the same investment dollars could be used elsewhere in comparatively lower-risk contexts thereby driving increased shareholder value.

In other words, what if GOOG spent the $1B+ they are spending in China on... nothing? At 60x P/E, that $1B is worth $60B in market cap. Combine the fact that there is a real IP risk in China (which could wipe out the rest of GOOG's market cap) and the numbers just don't add up: GOOG would be more valuable without China than they are with it.

SI

[fCh]

As I wrote here: http://imotion.blogspot.com/2006/02/human-rights-yesbutplease-define.html
it's not an easy matter for the US businesses to improve on the Chinese political environment.

Not as much on a business level as human one, I would dare suggest that the world would be a better place were Mr. Semel do to others what he wants to be done onto himself. And I am not talking here about folks like the one who commented above how he feard he would have to work for $50K as a CPA after loosing money 6 years ago had it not been for China. I am talking about the rich folks, heading up multibillion dollar companies, whose only vision of better seems to center on the 500 TV channels streamed via the internet. Had this type of people been always in charge with the world, the internet itself would have been just imagination.

[Scot Boyd]

I would say one facet of this problem is that the companies in question are operating under the same name as their American parents.

One expects Google and Yahoo, as American companies serving American customers (like me) to behave "properly" in everything they do, here and abroad. So when "Google" and "Yahoo" provide information that causes dissenters to be rounded up and thrown in jail, people are naturally appalled.

And they should be. Google and Yahoo are sullying their good names.

The only realistic solution I see, if they want to do business in a region with a moral climate that is detrimental to their worldwide image, is to change their name in those countries. They cannot do business as "Google (China)" or "Yahoo (China)". They need to create subsidiaries with completely new names in an attempt to reduce public furor over the activities of those companies.

Even this is not a complete solution. The plain fact of the matter is that business does not exist in a moral vacuum.

The same benefit that allows "Google" to be a recongizable brand in the Chinese market causes the moral backlash in America. They cannot have their cake and eat it too.

If they do change their name, some people will still know what is going on, and complain, but it will be a less severe effect.

[Jeremy Johnson]

Having lived in China for 6 months I would like to endorse the comments of Dean Nash.

One further point I would like to make is that although the central Chinese government may appear very strong (and by extension the leader of that government), in reality, the provinces, of which there are a bit less than 20, have a large amount of autonomy and often set many policies indepently. Within the central government itself, the President must answer to the senior committees and does not have absolute power. For instance, in the final year's of Mao's chairmanship he was virtually powerless, and even during his heydey, was often derailed on major policy decisions.

Finally, I would say from my personal experiences in China, that the civilization is highly developed, perhaps not in legal terms, contracts, etc. But, there is some sort of binding level of trust among people that does not exist in many other developing markets, even those with more highly devloped property related legal systems.

[Neal S. Lachman]

I think people should stop looking at China through American or "Westernized" goggles.

Stop being paternalistic and paternalizing should be our first step. Revolutions come from within and by the concerned/affected people, not from arm-chair advocating or by remote control.

[Ann]

First, it's not saying much that things in China are better than 20 years ago. They're even better than 45 years ago, when millions were starving to death while the graneries were full and China exported grain, or 40 years ago when Mao launched the Cultural Revolution to kill off those with too clear a memory of the Great Leap Forward. That's the communist lesson on how to create growth - first obliterate the economy to the point where anything is an improvement.

"more information will always be better than less"

But for Western companies to put their logo and name behind search results that are carefully edited to present to Chinese the idea that everyone in the world has the same opinion - that democracy is dangerous and should be avoided or at least delayed as long as possible - is that really 'more information'?

Aren't you uncomfortable with the idea of people spending 20 years in prison for, say, revealing accurate statistics on AIDs in China? After all, revealing accurate AIDs figures is illegal, so they deserve it, don't they?

"Chinese laws are clear about what people can and can't say"

Don't you need to try to back this up, if you're serious? Have you seen the discussions on Chinese blogs (granted, I can only read the ones in English, but there are plenty) speculating about what is and isn't allowed? They're never sure. Of all the things that one could say about Chinese laws, alleging perfect clarity seems to be one of the least defensible claims. And the fact that you weren't aware that Google chose not to offer e-mail in China in order to avoid the Yahoo problems makes me wonder if you've researched the issue. From what I've read, the Chinese have been pressuring Google from the beginning to not give the message at the bottom when results are censored, and to not allow Chinese users to get to the regular Google website. From the moment the 'deal' was announced, the Chinese have been trying to chip away at it. Google hopefully is fighting to make things better, but the Chinese government is trying harder to get rid of the efforts Google made.

"Yahoo should have some sort of internal reviewers that spot legal infractions and correct or take them down" Again, there seems to be this strange idea that there's a set standard. Like most laws in China, it's all based on whim and can change from day to day, for any arbitrary reason. A violation is whatever they happen to decide it is. Remember the reporter that got a 14 year prison sentence for revealing 'state secrets', because he leaked details of a speech that a Chinese Communist Party member was going to give the next day? The person had no position in government, only in the Party, and the speech was going to be given the next day, so how secret could it have been? A 'state secret' is whatever someone in power decides that it is, on any given day.

"the Chinese are obviously living up to their promises to the people of HKG" Again, basis? The people that I know in Hong Kong have not been pleased with the way the leadership has been paralyzed - the mainland doesn't want to seem to be interfering, but HK leaders know darn well how much trouble they'll be in if they do the wrong thing. The result is that HK has been left to drift through some very difficult times. And the rule of law - the biggest gift that the British gave to Hong Kong - is gradually being eroded. HK is headed down, and the people can only hope that things improve on the mainland faster than they are forced to decline in Hong Kong.

"China is not Nazi Germany and it is an insult to those who died at the hands of the Nazis to make that comparision." There are differences, obviously, but in terms of murder count, there's no comparison. Mao killed far, far more people than Hitler. In a comparison of communism, facism and war in the 20th century, communism had by far the highest death count. Mao was #1, but Stalin did pretty well also. And in percentage terms, no one compares with Pol Pot.

[Ann]

Dean,

On Google e-mail in China, I'll admit that I don't know the details very well. I believe it's that they don't have servers in China. If you really want to learn about it, you can look it up. The original announcement of the Google 'deal' to operate in China specifically said that they were only going to offer certain services and were not going to fully enter, the way Yahoo had. Press reports at the time discussed that this would keep them from having personal records such as those that Yahoo had turned over.

On Hong Kong, the NPC has 're-interpreted' the Basic Law several times, they tried to push through a very restrictive sedition law, they came onto HK soil and dragged out that gangster (Broken Tooth, or something like that; I don't know much about triads, either) and they reversed the decisions of the Court of Final Appeal on the right of abode cases. Plus there's what I mentioned originally, that they've paralysed local government, which is frightened of a move that may not be approved. Tung drew much of the blame, but many of the problems were because he cared more about the Beijing masters than about the people of Hong Kong. And the CCP didn't want to seem to interfere with HK, because they still hoped Taiwan would take the bait.

On why the British never brought democracy to Hong Kong, that's pretty obvious - it would have given the communists an excuse to march in the troops. Even less than a month before the Handover, when there was the usual June 4th peaceful memorialization in the park, Chinese generals said that this was a sign of chaos in Hong Kong which might force them to march the troops in early.

After WWII, Britain had plans for self rule for pretty much all of their colonies except Hong Kong. HK leaders told the British they didn't want it, in part because they thought that the current regime was good for business but mainly because they were afraid that, if the British left, the communists would come.

[Ann]

Dean -

If you're saying that Hong Kong hasn't been a total disaster, I agree. The HK people have taken a few stands and have gotten away with them, although the rule of law has been weakened rather than strengthened overall. The Hong Kong people that I know, mostly my former university students and colleagues, are unhappy with the leadership but are willing to endure rather than rebel because things aren't as bad as they could be.

I argued that the people of Hong Kong knew just how big a threat the CCP was, and much preferred the British (which shows how badly they wanted to avoid communist rule, since naturally they didn't like being a British colony). In Taiwan, a huge majority is in favor of the status quo because they're not currently being subjected to the CCP. As for mainlanders, they don't have a choice, do they? They're happy that the government hasn't been as incredibly incompetent and vicious lately as it was for its first few decades - who wouldn't be glad that they've cut the murder rate and stopped pounding the economy into the ground?

You seem to be saying that the Chinese people can have a new government any time they want it, at little cost. If enough of them were willing to be slaughtered for it, perhaps they could force change, but the cost would be high. In the meantime, they might as well make the best of it, since things are getting better, but they're still far from a system where the people truly have a choice.

[Gee]

Dean,

I read with great interest your posts (as well as those of others) on this topic (China, freedoms,change, etc.). I suspect that most Chinese (as well as most of us Americans) are full of good intent. Whether I place the same level of trust in their government (or in mine for that matter) is an entirely different matter. At times it seems that whole nations are placed on a path that is decided by those at the top which then justify their actions by the information they allow us to have. Given this, I believe many Chinese (and many of us in America) may not have enough access to the information necessary to decide whether they want their government to pursue a certain strategy (even if they did, my guess is that they are even more restricted than we in how they can influence their government to do otherwise). I say this because we still live in a world of nations and nationalism still plays a role in why/how nations pursue their strategic goals. In this country I believe it is the business sector which probably drives much of the government's global strategic policies. In China it is the government in the form of the CCP that decides this. I can't help but think, and get uneasy over this matter, that China's recent economic/technological developments won't boost its nationalism/pride with the consequent dangers it poses in the form of potential military confrontations with other nations over the rights to essential resources. From what I've read in different mediums concerning feelings of national pride in emerging countries like China and India, this is still a potent force. It would be tempting for the CCP to harness these feelings should they ever want to take something by non-peaceful means.
Regarding the daily concerns of the average citizen in China, it is not a consensus opinion that everything has been good for everyone there: I'm sure that there have been several millions that have benefitted from the tremendous increase in manufacturing, but how many have been left without enjoying these increased wages and living conditions?
How many Chinese have lost the once free access to medical care (though granted it may not have been much) and the opportunity to get an education? How many protests occur throughout China because some (I would venture to guess the majority) feel deep resentment because things have gotten worse instead of better? This, of course, is one more problem that the CCP faces when trying to maintain the needed stability so that foreign investment continues and therefore, economic growth. I sincerely hope that the statements Chinese leaders make concerning peaceful growth are true, but for some reason, I can't completely believe in those assertions (hoping for the best, but...).

[China Law Blog]

China is a heck of a lot better off now than it was five years ago and that holds true for individual freedom there as well. But, the way you are talking you make it seem like the answers are clear when they are not. I was part of my college's student government when we had to deal with some of these same sorts of issues involving South Africa divestiture. To this day I am still not sure I voted the right way. All I am saying here is that the issues involved here are unbelievably complicated and I take great comfort in the fact that we have the freedom to discuss them.

[Gee]

Dean,

Thanks for the valuable input. I agree with some of your thoughts and take comfort in others, but am still worried about what fundamentally is a weakness inherent to all of us: human nature.

By the accounts of many, the very wealthy Chinese seem to have many of the vices that the rich have in other parts of the world (greed, sense of entitlement, nationalism). It is they, like their counterparts here, who will some day rule that country. If they continue to emulate the powerful in the West, I fear this may not lead to anything good. I have no doubt that your students are all that you say they are and, for the most part, many of their American peers (at least many of those I've met) are like-minded. The problem arises when these young adults encounter all things that come with success: the very temptations that turn bright, kind, starry-eyed, young optimists into cynical and greedy CEO's. In China's (and India's) case what worries me is the "what if" of an eventual "now it's our turn" mentality, specially since past grievances (Japanese atrocities a la "rape of Nanjing", Boxer rebellion) are deeply engraved in the Chinese psyche (I'm not saying they would intentionally repeat such acts, but they sure are modernizing their armed forces in a way that allows them not only defensive capacity, but also the ability to initiate conflicts in what are deemed pre-emptive actions.).
If history is any guide, and particularly recent history, human nature has not "evolved" sufficiently that we may take comfort believing primitive behaviors such as those mentioned above will not repeat themselves.
Honestly I do see your points and can hope you are right, but the fact remains that as long as societies cannot go beyond petty regionalisms and the current "dog-eat-dog" capitalist model, we will not be able to go beyond the problems that have plagued societies for so long. I may be taking the Deng Xiaoping's "to get rich is glorious" out of context, but is it not possible that some Chinese would also take this "too literally"? Judging by the behavior of some wealthy Chinese and if one sees the scope of building projects, it would appear that there is a need to have "the biggest, the highest, the grandest" as proof that China "has arrived".
The problems you mention have been discussed by different people in different venues and Chinese officials themselves admit to them (particularly the widespread corruption and the difficulties of taking care of the remaining 800-900 million Chinese who have not yet reaped the benefits the other 300 million have).
I also hope that democratic reforms eventually come about "when the time is right" and do not favor isolation as a policy to "punish or contain" Chinese business or political practices that are deemed unfair. Till then though, I am in favor of a "trust, but verify stance" with regards to the CCP which entails limiting sensitive technology transfer to Chinese companies as well as diversifying our trading partners so that the sources of our products are not limited to one country.
Please let your students know, for whatever it's worth, that there are many of us who, though realists who prefer to be careful, are not satisfied with the status quo and wish for society to rise above the conspicuous consumption image so many big business ads put out for the rest of us to emulate. Often it is society's norms which are far stronger than any laws our legislators can create and some of us would like to change the still-reigning "1980's Wall Street/Bonfire of the Vanities" mentality with one of cooperation and compassion. We are a long way from a more participative, engaged, and transparent society, yet some of us still hope to reach this goal. I believe in the power of individuals, but individuals within the context of an altruistic society. Surely individuals as part of a "collective mind" are able to solve many of our current and future problems; the problem is how to get there. Any thoughts? What do your students think?

P.S. The tone of many posts seen in this and other forums seems, at times, pugnacious and, realizing that not always do the proper words to describe a thought flow from my keyboard, I wish to say that my thoughts, as expressed by these written comments, strive to be constructive in nature and have the purpose of learning not only facts, but also perspectives that I may not be able to see.

[Gee]

Dean,

In reviewing some comments made by others (Still Inside, Neal Lachmann, China Law Blog) I find myself agreeing with many of their points regarding just how complex the situation is in China (China Law Blog), viewing China through "Western goggles" (Neal S. Lachmann), and patent rights infringement (Still Inside).
Much as I may try to look at China through "Chinese goggles", this may not happen even if I were to live there for a certain period of time (I've lived in another country for a certain period of time, yet have still not completely understood it or its people). For this reason I speak/communicate with as many people (who have either lived there, were born there, or who do business there) as I can. It's the reason why I read these posts and interact with other people (and, I'm guessing, many others have the same intent), so I don't understand the harsh terms used by some to characterize others in this forum.
Like some others, I too am very concerned that much of China's technological advances are made through copyright infringement (reverse engineering saves one a lot of money which would otherwise have to be spent in research and development). Of course they will be able to achieve (and already have) significant advances "on their own", but that companies doing business there run the risk of creating their own most capable competitors by engaging Chinese business partners (in the mode of GM and Shanghai automotive) is something which ought to (and does) concern these companies. The fact that many investors still knowingly do business there doesn't make me think it is the best situation (I don't know what the best situation should be) since this may be due to investment managers needing to post the best short term investment returns possible rather than having the "luxury" of long term economic planning.
As far as the freedom issue is concerned, this is an extremely complex question though it may sound very simple. Though I may have the freedom to post whatever I want, part of what I post is influenced by the information I have access to and, by the amount of free time I have to gather information. What amount of my posts are being followed by American or Chinese (or any other country's) censors I do not know. What actions would be taken by those in power (government, business, other special interest groups) were any of our ideas to reach critical mass (or the potential for achieving it)and threaten their interests, I do not know. Even if not by violence, there are plenty of other, more sophisticated ways to counteract an opinion that is not convenient (the more power/money you have, the more talking heads you can hire to put out arguments-true, false, or anywhere in between-to counter the opinions you want to discredit).
Dean, I would truly like to be as sanguine as you are concerning China's leaders and the path it is taking, but I would feel a lot safer taking a more reserved stance. Juggling many "balls in the air" makes it all that more difficult for the Chinese government. No matter how bright and well intentioned China's leaders may be, circumstances have a way of spiralling out of control beyond even what the most well-intentioned of us would want (the future is sure to bring about more competition for ever scarcer natural resorces with the consequent increasing potential for collisions to occur). To the CCP's credit, it has realized that a huge, low-cost and stable workforce is a very attractive lure to many foreign industries. This however, has many workers worried in countries around the world since jobs are increasingly being outsourced to low-cost labor in China and India.
These comments in no way negate your personal experiences while living there. They are just my concerns. I hope you (and others)believe I'm honest enough to tell you when I see a valid point and when I, maybe because inevitably the Western goggles will always-to a degree- exist, simply cannot agree given the amount of information I now have. The question still remains: where do we go from here?

[Gee]

Dean,

Thanks for the above comments. The relatively long answer I wrote seems to not have posted.
I agree with most of what you say. We differ in degrees.
The one thing I always try to remember, dealing with both people or thinking about other countries, specially their governments, is that (exceptions being charismatic despots)their actions, though not rational to us, are dictated by "rational" or at least understandable motives.
If any of my misgivings or implied criticisms concerning the Chinese government (and some of their elite) need to be qualified, it is understanding that I make them fully realizing that our own history allows for plenty of criticism from others and that surely the Chinese have as many, if not more, misgivings about our government. Though still standing by my reservations, change has to start "at home" and, allowing for all "real-politik"justifications for past and present behaviors, a certain consistency in our policies/actions towards others would go a long way toward winning us, if not friends, at least a certain genuine respect.

I hope this one posts.

By the way, I find creativity a fascinating topic, so any reading material/personal experiences you can generously offer will be greatly appreciated.

I found your comments on the shortcomings of the American school system very valid and share your thoughts concerning a greater role for private enterprise in the education of our youth (the same could be said for enlightened participation by the private sector in other arenas such as health care; today's WSJ article, "Baby steps: Cincinnati applies a corporate model to saving infants" comes to mind).