# China's Urban Income Gap Alarming



## wigo (Jan 23, 2006)

should be this one, http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcpoll06-3.html, sorry.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

The Americans elected a president who supported invading another country illegally, ignoring international conventions for POWs and bypassing the UN in the process. Is that a triumph to democracy? Clearly the policies are what shape good government, not the ideology.

That's why democracy and capitalism are not a cure-all for all of life's problems. It has failed in many countries, such as Russia, and even in Iraq now. The Palestinians voted in Hamas, much to the amazement of the international community.

Would China's poor revolt now? Even though they are still poor, they are far better off now than 20 years ago. Would they want to risk losing even this little piece of progress now?


----------



## zergling (Jul 5, 2004)

DonQui said:


> :crazy:
> 
> This has to be one of the stupidest analgoies I have ever read.
> 
> ...



Do you even understand what democracy means?
It means rule by majority.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

wigo said:


> Tibet, Taiwan are countries? ask your country first!
> 
> If China was powerful, should China support American Confedration, which was screwed by your nasty motherland?
> 
> Look at this first, http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcpoll06-4.html, and ask youself, why?


You occupy the Tibetan nation now, and are threatening to take over the Taiwanese nation as well. And your support for North Korea is dividing the Korean nation. And you occupy Indian land.

This seems like interference if you ask me.


----------



## didu (Jun 13, 2005)

DonQui said:


> I reject authoritarian governments entirely. I'd rather my country be poor and strive towards democratic ideals than be rich and dictate to me how to live my life.
> 
> I don't care if authoritarian governments do good. They do so much bad that IMO it is a non-issue.



Then you are no different from the Islamic fundementalists who blindly follow
their faiths without any respect for rational thinking. The only difference is that
your religion is a political ideology called democracy.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

zergling said:


> Do you even understand what democracy means?
> It means rule by majority.


:crazy:

NOT WHEN IT IS USED TO MURDER!

For fucking Christ's sakes, this is such a retarded argument!

:crazy:


----------



## zergling (Jul 5, 2004)

DonQui said:


> You occupy the Tibetan nation now, and are threatening to take over the Taiwanese nation as well. And your support for North Korea is dividing the Korean nation. And you occupy Indian land.
> 
> This seems like interference if you ask me.


Most of the whole America itself landmass were illegally acquired.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

didu said:


> Then you are no different from the Islamic fundementalists who blindly follow
> their faiths without any respect for rational thinking. The only difference is that
> your religion is a political ideology called democracy.


:sly:

Allow me to disagree on this one. Democracy respects the fundamentl rights of human beings, Islamic fundamentalism discriminates, is used to justify murder, in short, to take away people's fundamental rights.

HUGE difference.


----------



## didu (Jun 13, 2005)

DonQui said:


> You occupy the Tibetan nation now, and are threatening to take over the Taiwanese nation as well. And your support for North Korea is dividing the Korean nation. And you occupy Indian land.
> 
> This seems like interference if you ask me.


Your country is occupying Iraq now and threatening to take the nation of Iran,
and your support for South Korea was what divided and continues to divide the
Korean nation in the first place. Oh, and you not only massacred millions of 
American Indians, but you have been occupying their land for hundreds of years.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

zergling said:


> Most of the whole America itself landmass were illegally acquired.


How is this even relevant to the debate?


----------



## superchan7 (Jan 21, 2004)

DonQui said:


> :no:
> 
> Sure, you get more food on your table if you live in the city. What about the 1 BILLION peasants in the countryside?


I've seen and talked with some of the poorest people in China. It is true that some people experience only marginal improvements in their lifestyle, but agricultural reform is a hot topic in China and the government is trying (although not always successful) at improving the lives of farmers by changing its subsidy policy, enforcing privatization practices, etc.

But none of us here care about that, because we're still thinking about Tiananmen.


----------



## zergling (Jul 5, 2004)

DonQui said:


> :crazy:
> 
> NOT WHEN IT IS USED TO MURDER!
> 
> ...


The argument was meant to demonstrate that democracy could turn into a mob rule, while enlightened absolutism could yet possibly mean desirable social policies conducive to economic prosperity and social well-being.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

DonQui said:


> You occupy the Tibetan nation now, and are threatening to take over the Taiwanese nation as well. And your support for North Korea is dividing the Korean nation. And you occupy Indian land.
> 
> This seems like interference if you ask me.


You need to read a little bit on history. The Dalai Lama is not advocating Tibetan independence, but rather autonomy as a part of China. Taiwan is not recognized as a nation in much of the international community. They're just occupied by a party that lost the civil war and moved there in disgrace.

North Korea's problems come from many countries, including China and the United States. It didn't help when Bush labelled them an 'Axis of Evil' nation. 

Sino-Indian relations have warmed considerably since the border war in the 1960s. I doubt there are two large neighboring countries in the world that coexisted peacefully throughout time. The Americans tried invading Canada, and the Spanish want to take back Gibraltar. The Germans have landed in France several times in the past few hundred years.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

didu said:


> Your country is occupying Iraq now and threatening to take the nation of Iran,
> and your support for South Korea was what divided and continues to divide the
> Korean nation in the first place. Oh, and you not only massacred millions of
> American Indians, but you have been occupying their land for hundreds of years.


Barking up the wrong tree here, as I have always, ALWAYS been against Iraq.

Occupying Iraq, yes we are. But at least we are going to leave Iraqi soil. Are you going to extend the same courtesy to the Tibetans? And Iran is a hostile country that has threatened to nuke another country, sorry.

Our support of South Korea has in some respects helped turn it into one of the wealthiest and most democratic countries in the region. I think the North Koreans starving in the Chinese-sponsored northern half of the nation have a little bit more to complain about.

And again, how are the Native Americans even relevant here? Was China itself not the creation of different waves of people slaughtering and taking over other people's lands? Every part of the world was.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

zergling said:


> The argument was meant to demonstrate that democracy could turn into a mob rule, while enlightened absolutism could yet possibly mean desirable social policies conducive to economic prosperity and social well-being.


Enlightened absolutism? What CENTURY do you live in?


----------



## didu (Jun 13, 2005)

DonQui said:


> :sly:
> 
> Allow me to disagree on this one. Democracy respects the fundamentl rights of human beings, Islamic fundamentalism discriminates, is used to justify murder, in short, to take away people's fundamental rights.
> 
> HUGE difference.


 :stupid:

Allow me to tell you reveal the real world to you. Democracy does not repsect
the fundamental rights of human beings, rule-of-law does. Democracy is just
a more ordered fashion of mob rule. People who support democracy discriminate
using their numbers and they use it to attack other countries and take away
other people's rights to determine their own fates.

Democracy is just a political ideology, it's not that different from any religion,
and it definitely is not the magic bullet to solve the world's problems.


----------



## superchan7 (Jan 21, 2004)

Since China was established by forcibly taking over lands as all other countries were, then it has every right to retain sovereignty over Tibet.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

didu said:


> :stupid:
> 
> Allow me to tell you reveal the real world to you. Democracy does not repsect
> the fundamental rights of human beings, rule-of-law does. Democracy is just
> ...


Very true. Democracy is certainly not helping the prisoners at Guantanamo. I find there is a lot of confusion between religion, politics, and economics. People like to mix them together. The Middle East has a problem with mixing religion (Islam) and politics (fundamentalism), while the West likes to spread a mix of politics (democracy) and economics (capitalism).


----------



## wigo (Jan 23, 2006)

iron_monkey said:


> But the power given to low level officials in a dictatorship like China means that the country is more susceptible to corruption than a democracy. Corruption causes alot of unrest in China today, it is IMO the chief cause.
> 
> low level officials must be made accountable to the population.
> 
> something like a democratic dictatorship/ authoratarian democracy would be ok, im not sure if this is possible.


Look at this, http://ww1.transparency.org/cpi/2005/2005.10.18.cpi.en.html, pay attention to where are China, India and Russia?


----------



## zergling (Jul 5, 2004)

DonQui said:


> Enlightened absolutism? What CENTURY do you live in?


I live in the 21st century.


----------



## Lee (Jun 2, 2003)

zergling said:


> Bought from who?


France and Russia.


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

> That is misleading. The early KMT government laid the foundations for a new China(legislative, social systems, etc). Both parties fought the Japanese, and one can easily "officially found" the nation after war with the Japanese. But years before it was only the KMT who did the vast majority of the hard work of uniting warlord states.


look KMT lost civil war for a reason, if they have enough support, how could they lose civil war with an army that is ten times better equipped than Red Army?

As much as I respect Sun Yat-Sen, I have to admit he hasn't done half as much as Mao. Sun was a nice person and all, but his leadership was not effective. If i can rewrite the history, I would make Sun YatSen the founding father of China, but since I can't , he is not.


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

anyways i think all great heroes are notwithout their flaws, I consider a Mao a hero, he had done some great things for China, he was a brilliant commander, a poet (perhaps one of the best in 20th century China, i bet a lot of you dont know that), a charismatic person. but during Mao's later years, he was as bad as some of the worst tyrants the world had ever seen. but you cant deny and ignore all his contributions to modern China which are plenty, just because of his wrongdoings.


----------



## zergling (Jul 5, 2004)

Lee said:


> France and Russia.


How did France and Russia get to own those land in the first place?


----------



## iron_monkey (Jan 21, 2005)

Sen said:


> anyways i think all great heroes are notwithout their flaws, I consider a Mao a hero, he had done some great things for China, he was a brilliant commander, a poet (perhaps one of the best in 20th century China, i bet a lot of you dont know that), a charismatic person. but during Mao's later years, he was as bad as some of the worst tyrants the world had ever seen. but you cant deny and ignore all his contributions to modern China which are plenty, just because of his wrongdoings.


 Almost forgot about this. 

I have never denied his contributions. 
All heroes have their flaws, but the flaws of Mao are extreme and far outweigh his contributions. 
His stupidity and ruthlessness caused millions of deaths, and in addition many millions of lives were ruined under his regime. I consider him a man of extremes, a hero, but also a great villian. 

To just consider him a hero would be a insult to the people who suffered and died under his regime, even if many of these people or their descendants still respect him. 
Chances are many of these people (many from underdeveloped inland areas) have little idea of Mao's responsibility and just blame it on natural disasters, Mao's subordinates, or deny that he was responsible for much of the brutal repression. 
Not surprising really, being constantly exposed to the countless propaganda and the cult of personality in the Cultural revolution. The CCP after Mao tried to play down the disasters and Mao's role in them, dismissing them as "mistakes". They placed much of the blame in the cultural Revolution on the gang of four.


----------



## wigo (Jan 23, 2006)

^^^ Whatever you say, in 1949, China essentially couldn't make any industrial goods, and China's miracle in Deng's era was not built on sand, that fundation was laid by Mao, of course, under extreme difficult condition as I mentioned. 

The tragedies in Mao's era, I would rather conclude them as the continuation of the China bloody conflict, especially the civil war. If a person is traumatized after long time of tourture and is still subject to mental stress, he or she is very likely to do some crazy things. A country is the same and China is perhaps the most bloodies battlefield in the world from late Qing dynasty to 1949.

Finally, most Chinese respect Mao, regardless in China or oversea and regardless of the education, not simply because most Chinese are stupid or blind.


----------



## iron_monkey (Jan 21, 2005)

wigo said:


> ^^^ Whatever you say, in 1949, China essentially couldn't make any industrial goods, and China's miracle in Deng's era was not built on sand, that fundation was laid by Mao, of course, under extreme difficult condition as I mentioned.


 I already said much of the state run enterprises built under Mao are a liability and a danger to present economic growth, they cannot run in a market economy. The CCP is facing a large problem trying to get rid of them without sparking unrest from unemployment. They are not a foundation to economic growth today, the opposite is true. The indsutrial output for the market economy of China had to start from scratch.



> Finally, most Chinese respect Mao, regardless in China or oversea and regardless of the education, not simply because most Chinese are stupid or blind.


 Because almost all of them dont get to properly see the western viewpoint, and even if they want to the CCP wont allow it. Also, many understandably dont want to accept a hero would become like this, and beleive westerners must be lying because of the hostile "us and them" mentality inherited from the Mao era.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Income gap widening between rural, urban areas in China*
Friday, September 14

BEIJING (AFP) - - The income gap between rural and urban areas is widening in China, state media reported Friday, despite years of efforts from the top echelons of government to bridge the divide.

Last year, the average Chinese city dweller earned 3.28 times as much as his fellow citizen in the countryside, up from 3.21 times in 2004, the China Daily said, citing the agriculture ministry.

"We still have a long way to go in order to make substantial progress in narrowing the gap between rural and urban areas," the paper commented in an editorial.

The news that China's farmers are having a hard time catching up with people in the cities comes nearly five years into an administration that had made it a pillar of its political programme to make life in the countryside easier.

As late as in his annual "state of the union" address in March, Premier Wen Jiabao identified income distribution as a priority area, saying his government would raise rural incomes "through a variety of channels."

"Agriculture, the base of the economy, remains weak, and it is now more difficult than ever to steadily increase grain production and keep rural incomes growing," Wen said then.

President Hu Jintao has also identified the widening wealth gap as a key problem in his long-term objective of building a "harmonious society."

Farmers are actually getting prosperous at a rate not seen since the mid-1980s, with average rural incomes increasing by six percent annually for three consecutive years.

However, people in the cities are getting richer at an even faster pace, fuelling fears that anger over economic injustice could erupt into open expressions of discontent.

"It is a battle we cannot afford to lose," the China Daily warned. "How this task is fulfilled is believed to bear an impact on the overall strength of the country."


----------



## Ritz (May 18, 2007)

I dont like Communism nor Atheism. But Mao deserves to be one of the most influential people of the twentieth century. He brought China from the land of Dynasties and "Sons of Heaven"/"Mandate of Heaven" court culture to modern day China. 

The policies he made served to completely break with the stagnant tradition and thrust China into the 21st century. Mao and Deng Xiapling (sp?). 

Conclusion is China went from a period of Foreign Domination and Civil War in 1910 to China unified in 1950, to China world power in 2005, to China SuperPower in 2025.

His poetry, philosophy, activity, and lead will probably make him something of a Confucious, Mencius or something or other in the eyes of future generations hundreds of years from now.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

China's modernization push is actually to the credit of Deng Xiaopeng, not Mao.


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

hkskyline said:


> China's modernization push is actually to the credit of Deng Xiaopeng, not Mao.


only economic liberalisation, industralization is the work of Mao.


----------



## big-dog (Mar 11, 2007)

land reform should also credit to Mao, which proved to be a crucial element or basis of today's development (esp infrastructure wise).


----------



## Ritz (May 18, 2007)

hkskyline said:


> China's modernization push is actually to the credit of Deng Xiaopeng, not Mao.


Deng is responsible for opening China; Mao for transformation. 

Foot Binding in the 1900s to modern day systems. It takes alot of hard work to bring people out of a Dynastic Empire ritualized mentality to a modern day system. If he can do it in one life time he deserves some credit for capability.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Under Deng's leadership, China experienced unpredecented economic growth and modernization, resulting in significant wealth generation since the 1980s. Ironically, capitalism is also the cause of present income gap woes that threaten to destroy the progress made so far. Appeasing the rural poor is key to maintaining a stable China to continue marching forward.


----------



## darjeeling123 (Dec 26, 2004)

Sen said:


> anyways i think all great heroes are notwithout their flaws, I consider a Mao a hero.


You mean flaws like killing 30 million Chinese in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution? But like except for that he was a hero. I mean except for the 30 million dead people.


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

darjeeling123 said:


> You mean flaws like killing 30 million Chinese in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution? But like except for that he was a hero. I mean except for the 30 million dead people.


30 million died in culture revolution??? that's a lie for westerners bash china.
in my town, i never heard some body died in culture revolution.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*China says to splash out on culture for farmers *

BEIJING, Sept 27 (Reuters) - China plans to spend close to 4 billion yuan ($532 million) over the next three years to ensure that all of its villages has a cultural centre where residents can learn, play and be entertained, state media said. 

The funds will be used to construct or expand 26,700 cultural centres in rural areas, the official Xinhua news agency cited State Councillor Chen Zhili as saying on Thursday. 

"By 2010, every village in China will have a culture centre," Xinhua quoted Chen as saying. 

Concerned about social stability, Beijing has been ramping up spending on the countryside in an effort to narrow the yawning gap between the rural poor and the increasingly wealthy -- and well-educated -- residents of urban coastal areas. 

To that end, the government has expanded rural cooperative medical insurance and abolished most school fees for rural children. It is also trying to improve financial services in the countryside, to give farmers a better chance of getting ahead. 

Chen said the centres should offer affordable, high-quality facilities including libraries, sports facilities and theatres -- and should be not-for-profit. 

Separately, Xinhua said Beijing would double to 100 million yuan the awards it would hands out this year for efforts to promote science among the rural population. 

The awards, presented to more than 430 organisations and individuals, would go in a large part to science and technology associations in the country's less developed central and western regions, Xinhua said. 

This year's recipients included an onion research institute and a team that promoted "scientific" farming and herding techniques in Inner Mongolia, Xinhua said. 

($1=7.5148 yuan)


----------



## darjeeling123 (Dec 26, 2004)

oliver999 said:


> 30 million died in culture revolution??? that's a lie for westerners bash china.
> in my town, i never heard some body died in culture revolution.


Actually most of those 30 million people died in the Great Leap Forward. I guess it was a great leap for them. The biggest leap of all.

But wait I'm sorry, I forgot. Anything negative about China is a Western or Japanese invention intended to bash the Chinese people. Sorry, never mind. Let's just forget about those dead people. I mean people die all the time, right? What's 15 million dead Chinese here or 15 million dead Chinese there? Doesn't change the fact that Mao was a hero.


----------



## z0rg (Jan 17, 2003)

darjeeling123 said:


> You mean flaws like killing 30 million Chinese in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution? But like except for that he was a hero. I mean except for the 30 million dead people.


I don't like Mao either, but considering how many killings needed the West to pass from Feudalism to modern era he did it ok. Also, Deng's reforms couldn't have been implemented without the prior Maoist period and he would have failed just like the GMD did. If you want to build a cute skyscraper you have to clear the plot first, that was Mao's paper. But yeah, nobody likes the unfriendly guy of the bulldozzer, but somebody has to do the dirty work, right? On the other hand, I still believe Mao committed many horrible "errors", and that's why I don't like him 

Anyway, Deng is the key engineer of modern China, indeed. Even more, considering the forecasts for the coming China and its weight in the world, the repercussions of Deng's decisions might make him the engineer of the 21st century...


----------



## darjeeling123 (Dec 26, 2004)

z0rg said:


> I don't like Mao either, but considering how many killings needed the West to pass from Feudalism to modern era he did it ok. Also, Deng's reforms couldn't have been implemented without the prior Maoist period and he would have failed just like the GMD did. If you want to build a cute skyscraper you have to clear the plot first, that was Mao's paper. But yeah, nobody likes the unfriendly guy of the bulldozzer, but somebody has to do the dirty work, right? On the other hand, I still believe Mao committed many horrible "errors", and that's why I don't like him
> 
> Anyway, Deng is the key engineer of modern China, indeed. Even more, considering the forecasts for the coming China and its weight in the world, the repercussions of Deng's decisions might make him the engineer of the 21st century...


I mean, yeah, there was no way to become modern without killing at least 30 million Chinese people. That was, you know, unavoidable. 

Like, don't pay any attention to Japan. Sure, they didn't kill 30 million Japanese in their transition from feudalism to modernity. From the Edo Period to the Meiji Period. From say 1850 to 1890. They didn't even kill 3 million Japanese, or even 1 million. But you know, that's like another country, and totally not applicable.


----------



## YelloPerilo (Oct 17, 2003)

darjeeling123 said:


> I mean, yeah, there was no way to become modern without killing at least 30 million Chinese people. That was, you know, unavoidable.
> 
> Like, don't pay any attention to Japan. Sure, they didn't kill 30 million Japanese in their transition from feudalism to modernity. From the Edo Period to the Meiji Period. From say 1850 to 1890. They didn't even kill 3 million Japanese, or even 1 million. But you know, that's like another country, and totally not applicable.



Yeah, they did the killing in their neigbours' homes. hno:


----------



## z0rg (Jan 17, 2003)

darjeeling123 said:


> I mean, yeah, there was no way to become modern without killing at least 30 million Chinese people. That was, you know, unavoidable.
> 
> Like, don't pay any attention to Japan. Sure, they didn't kill 30 million Japanese in their transition from feudalism to modernity. From the Edo Period to the Meiji Period. From say 1850 to 1890. They didn't even kill 3 million Japanese, or even 1 million. But you know, that's like another country, and totally not applicable.


Well, Japan killed a few people some years later, you know, and so did the West before, during and after that period. History is blood.


----------



## LMCA1990 (Jun 18, 2005)

that's horrible. at least they're in better shape now.


----------



## darjeeling123 (Dec 26, 2004)

YelloPerilo said:


> Yeah, they did the killing in their neigbours' homes. hno:


It's less horrible to kill a stranger than your brother, perhaps? Anyway, sorry for mentioning Japan. I forget how angry Chinese get at that word. It is strange however, that they are not angry at their government, which killed more Chinese than the Japanese ever did. Instead, we have threads where Chinese people are calling the leader of a government that killed 30 million of its own citizens, a hero.

Hahahahahahahaha whoever thinks that is not only screwed up, but on a very deep level, pathetic.

I'm going on a trip now, and won't be able to reply. But good luck with your historical revisionism! Whatever it takes for you to suppress the cognitive dissonance of hating the British and Japanese, but calling Mao a hero!


----------



## YelloPerilo (Oct 17, 2003)

^^

Oh, a troll revealing himself. Good riddance!


----------



## big-dog (Mar 11, 2007)

darjeeling123 said:


> It's less horrible to kill a stranger than your brother, perhaps? Anyway, sorry for mentioning Japan. I forget how angry Chinese get at that word. It is strange however, that they are not angry at their government, which killed more Chinese than the Japanese ever did. Instead, we have threads where Chinese people are calling the leader of a government that killed 30 million of its own citizens, a hero.
> 
> Hahahahahahahaha whoever thinks that is not only screwed up, but on a very deep level, pathetic.
> 
> I'm going on a trip now, and won't be able to reply. But good luck with your historical revisionism! Whatever it takes for you to suppress the cognitive dissonance of hating the British and Japanese, but calling Mao a hero!


You must be a loser to try to start a flame in here. Why should people hate Japan if they don't worship the war criminals? on the other hand, why should people hate the current Chinese government if they are doing a good job lifting poverties?

I've seen many pathetic guys like you jealous on the rapid development of China. Sorry to make you uncomfortable all the time but it's a bloody fact you have to face in this century. Cheers! :lol: :cheers: :banana:


----------



## Bandit (Dec 6, 2006)

Typical bull from those that have been conquered by the British. They do afterall have to spin being so easily conquered. There's a word for those that look at their conquerers as something positive. It's called broken.


----------



## Hanshin-Tigress (Apr 10, 2007)

big-dog said:


> You must be a loser to try to start a flame in here. *Why should people hate Japan if they don't worship the war criminals?* on the other hand, why should people hate the current Chinese government if they are doing a good job lifting poverties?
> 
> I've seen many pathetic guys like you jealous on the rapid development of China. Sorry to make you uncomfortable all the time but it's a bloody fact you have to face in this century. Cheers! :lol: :cheers: :banana:


sorry besides some retarded prime ministers no japanese whatsoever worship war criminals. In fact our new prime minister will stop visits to Yasukuni Shrine.


----------



## big-dog (Mar 11, 2007)

anything related to British in here? Somebody is still proud of the old sins? Or just wanna start another forum war? Pathetic.


----------



## Hanshin-Tigress (Apr 10, 2007)

darjeeling123 said:


> It's less horrible to kill a stranger than your brother, perhaps? Anyway, sorry for mentioning Japan. I forget how angry Chinese get at that word. It is strange however, that they are not angry at their government, which killed more Chinese than the Japanese ever did. Instead, *we have threads where Chinese people are calling the leader of a government that killed 30 million of its own citizens, a hero.*
> 
> Hahahahahahahaha whoever thinks that is not only screwed up, but on a very deep level, pathetic.
> 
> I'm going on a trip now, and won't be able to reply. But good luck with your historical revisionism! Whatever it takes for you to suppress the cognitive dissonance of hating the British and Japanese, but calling Mao a hero!


Other then the fact you are a troll..


The bolded part, i don't quite understand either, however Mao was trying to help his country and his people, and some if not alot of good did come out of what he did. While japan on the other hand just wanted to conquer, and we(not we since they were a retarded militaristic dicatorship not representing the people) murdered ruthlessly and did scientific experiments etc. While Mao's *policies* did kill more chinese then the japanese did, the japanese did it cold heartedly and Mao was trying to fix the country, but either way, his policies still killed millions and i don't understand why people view him as an idol. Like i said i am not chinese and i'm not going to pretend like i know/understand how chinese feel towards him.

Oh and BTW i despise japanese war criminals more then probably everyone else in the world, I hate them more then maybe even i hate hitler.


----------



## big-dog (Mar 11, 2007)

Maki-chan said:


> sorry besides some retarded prime ministers no japanese whatsoever worship war criminals. In fact our new prime minister will stop visits to Yasukuni Shrine.


sometimes one visit from person on PM level will ruin the whole image. Of course Chinese people should learn to forget the past. 

I like the new PM, who might visit China in winter, a good start of new China-Japan relationship :cheers:


----------



## big-dog (Mar 11, 2007)

Maki-chan said:


> Other then the fact you are a troll..
> 
> 
> The bolded part, i don't quite understand either, however Mao was trying to help his country and his people, and some if not alot of good did come out of what he did. While japan on the other hand just wanted to conquer, and we(not we since they were a retarded militaristic dicatorship not representing the people) murdered ruthlessly and did scientific experiments etc. While Mao's policies did kill more chinese then the japanese did, the japanese did it cold heartedly and Mao was trying to fix the country, but either way, his policies still killed millions and i don't understand why people view him as an idol. Like i said i am not chinese and i'm not going to pretend like i know/understand how chinese feel towards him.
> ...


not many people really view him as an idol, not saying the victims. He is important just becaue he is the founder of the new China and he is a nationalist, which fit well to idol image of some Chinese nationalists, after all, he is not intended to kill but due to his stupid economic policy and that happened half century ago.

Let's stay in topic and ignore the trolls.


----------



## Hanshin-Tigress (Apr 10, 2007)

oliver999 said:


> 30 million died in culture revolution??? that's a lie for westerners bash china.
> in my town, i never heard some body died in culture revolution.


Yes many did die.. other chinese posters here agree many did die, im not sure about the correct number though.



> Of course Chinese people should learn to forget the past.


Japanese leaders need to take more responsibility but i am hopeful with our *new prime minister!!* He will stop visits to Yasukuni shrine :banana:

And no it's not about forgetting the past ,it's about looking towards a brighter future and working together to achieve that.



> I like the new PM, who might visit China in winter, a good start of new China-Japan relationship


I hope chinese will accept him


----------



## big-dog (Mar 11, 2007)

> Originally Posted by oliver999
> 30 million died in culture revolution??? that's a lie for westerners bash china.
> in my town, i never heard some body died in culture revolution.


It's not culture revolution but Great Leap Forward. It happened in late 1950s Mao wanted to start industrialization as fast as he wished, but he knows nothing about economics. He encouraged farmers to go to factories and make steels, which caused hugh wastage and famine.

Experts believe millions of people died of his bold and reckless economic policies but nobody knows the exact number.


----------



## Whiteeclipse (Mar 31, 2005)

For a fast developing nations, government rule is very important because it could change many lives fast. 

China has a great start for fast economic development, for example if China wants to build a road, the decision is made within weeks and road finished within months but if India wants to build a road then discussions will be held for months before a decision is made, then the building process takes a year or two.

Right now China needs to worry about growing their economy, when it's developed then the process into democracy will start.


----------



## Pax Sinica (Dec 10, 2005)

That's the disadvantage of a dictatorship. If a guy can overthrow the old government but have no wisdom to handle the new one, then all his countrymen will live in an artificial hell until the dictator goes to hell.

Farmers can produce steel by melting their tools in the backyards. Lazy people and hard-working people both can get the same salary. Students can get full marks if they refuse to write anything in the exams. Just say "long live our chairman", you will enjoy all these privileges.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Minister: China's Wealth Gap Widens *
27 December 2007

BEIJING (AP) - The politically sensitive gap in incomes between China's booming cities and the poor countryside is widening, according to a Cabinet minister quoted by a state news agency. 

The average city dweller's income was 3.28 times that of a rural resident's in 2006, up from 3.23 times in 2003, Agriculture Minister Sun Zhengcai said in a report to China's legislature, according to the Xinhua News Agency. 

The widening gap between the mostly urban elite who have benefited from three decades of economic reform and China's poor majority has fed political tensions, prompting protests over poverty and tax burdens. 

The communist government has made helping the countryside and China's urban poor an official priority over the next decade. 

But the rich-poor gulf has continued to widen despite increased government spending on rural schools, health care and aid to farmers. 

The Xinhua report on Sun's statement mentioned no new initiatives to narrow the income gap. 

Sun said income per person for the 900 million Chinese officially classed as rural residents rose 7 percent in 2007 to $550, according to Xinhua. 

It gave no comparative figures for cities, but the government has reported that incomes in Beijing, Shanghai and other big eastern cities are growing at double-digit annual rates.


----------



## kix111 (Jun 14, 2007)

thank you hkskyline for bringing the topic back...how on earth did this turn into a japan vs china thread @[email protected]


----------



## z0rg (Jan 17, 2003)

hkskyline said:


> The average city dweller's income was 3.28 times that of a rural resident's in 2006


It doesn't sound like a monster gap, especially for such a huge country. I'd like to see comparative figures for other countries.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Chinese farmers "happier", but wealth gap grows *

BEIJING, Jan 3 (Reuters) - China's more than 700 million farmers are happier than before despite a growing wealth gap, while poor urban residents are being squeezed by rising food and property prices, a top government think tank said on Thursday. 

Chinese farmers' satisfaction level has risen but that of urban dwellers has dropped, both due to a jump in food prices, which has driven up rural incomes but means people in towns and cities have to spend more, researchers say. 

Annual consumer inflation is running at the quickest pace in over a decade, driven largely by a spike in food prices, which has pushed a government fearful of social unrest to pump up agricultural subsidies and tighten food exports. 

"Prices rises have had a large impact on the lives of urban residents, yet they have been of some help to rural residents," said Li Peiyuan, editor of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 2008 Society Bluebook report. 

Li gave no details. 

Still, it would be better if prices were brought under control, he told a news conference, carried live on government Web site www.china.com.cn . 

"Controlling food prices and maintaining their stability are extremely important foundations for our social stability," Li said. 

Last year the government, wary of student activism, ordered local authorities to give more help to university students struggling with soaring food prices after several campus canteen boycotts in protest at the surging cost of meals. 

RICH-POOR DIVIDE 

The government is also trying to tackle a growing rich-poor, urban-rural divide, another cause of the rise in incidents of social unrest and violence in the world's most populous nation. 

Li said that gap was widening, although he gave no details, pointing instead to another worrying trend -- unemployment. 

While the problem was still concentrated in the old northeasterm industrial heartland, hard hit by the shift away from central planning to a more market-oriented economy, the situation nationally was becoming more complex, he said. 

Even with a growing skills shortage, university students were paradoxically having a harder time finding work, added Yang Yiyong, deputy head of the National Development and Reform Commission's Socio-Economic Research Institute. 

"I think one of the central issues here is students are not enterprising enough," Yang said. 

At Beijing's elite Tsinghua University, only 1 percent of graduates set up their own companies, compared to a quarter of U.S. college graduates, he added, suggesting that it was a problem with China's learning-by-rote culture. 

"It's not a problem with the students, but with our higher education system," Yang said. "We need to change it to put more emphasis on creative education."


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

hkskyline said:


> There are 900 million Chinese classed as rural residents. Even if 10% move to the cities, that's 90 million people. Can the large cities support them? Of course not. There are enough problems coping with these rural migrants which number a few million per major city and they wreck havoc on the railways during major festivals. Even if a conservative 9 million of the 90 go to Shanghai, I doubt they will be able to accept these low-skilled labourers with open arms.
> 
> Where will we put them? New slums?
> 
> ...


you're making a number of flawed assumptions. first of all, there probably will be jobs for them. thirty years ago there was only a few jobs in shenzhen. today there is millions. why can't this continue? people have been claiming that china has been at the breaking point ever since the reforms. but it's kept on going. why are you right _now_? what's different _now_?

90 million people is doable. as i already said, 405 million people have already moved to chinese cities. 90 million is nothing compared to that. urbanization rates have been 'stretching the limits' for the last thirty years. they will continue to 'strech the limits' but that doesn't mean things wont work out in the end.


----------



## xote (Jun 7, 2007)

foadi said:


> you're making a number of flawed assumptions. first of all, there probably will be jobs for them. thirty years ago there was only a few jobs in shenzhen. today there is millions. why can't this continue? people have been claiming that china has been at the breaking point ever since the reforms. but it's kept on going. why are you right _now_? what's different _now_?
> 
> 90 million people is doable. as i already said, 405 million people have already moved to chinese cities. 90 million is nothing compared to that. urbanization rates have been 'stretching the limits' for the last thirty years. they will continue to 'strech the limits' but that doesn't mean things wont work out in the end.


Obviously the Chinese government does not think so. Which is why they put up what might as well be pseudo-international borders within the country.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

foadi said:


> you're making a number of flawed assumptions. first of all, there probably will be jobs for them. thirty years ago there was only a few jobs in shenzhen. today there is millions. why can't this continue? people have been claiming that china has been at the breaking point ever since the reforms. but it's kept on going. why are you right _now_? what's different _now_?
> 
> 90 million people is doable. as i already said, 405 million people have already moved to chinese cities. 90 million is nothing compared to that. urbanization rates have been 'stretching the limits' for the last thirty years. they will continue to 'strech the limits' but that doesn't mean things wont work out in the end.


Your arguments do not come in line with what's happening in China today. The cities are not bursting with construction fever anymore. The central government is trying to cool the economy, and scaling back on major infrastructure projects and trying to cool down the housing sector. Construction jobs that are low-skilled and perfect for these migrant peasants are evaporating. I doubt even Shanghai has a few million of these available jobs for the taking. The peasants would be unemployed. 

Shenzhen's rise has much to do with Hong Kongers' investments in the delta, with plenty of factories to take in out-of-province migrants. But the process started with factories first, then migration, not the other way around. What you're suggesting is migrants can flood the cities as there are jobs waiting for them. That's not the case. 

Even now, Guangdong province is curbing the factories as environmental laws get tougher, meaning these large deposits of jobs are moving further inland, putting pressure on inland cities whose infrastructure are not as well developed as the east coast.

We do not have job openings of 90+ million in the cities waiting for peasants to fill up. The economic environment is not there to support these large movements. If your argument is true, then wages would've shot through the roof long ago as companies fought for staff and migration restrictions relaxed to let labour move to places of need. That is simply not the case.

Urbanization rates are not indicators of whether more migrants can flood to the cities. You have to think this through logically. Just because 400 million Chinese now live in cities doesn't mean it can take another 90, or even 50 million. Also, that 400 million is not entirely a rural to urban migration since the economic reforms in the 80s. Have you considered the fact that a lot of that 400 million has been around for generations - ie. Shanghai was a big city a century ago. Thus, your statement that 405 million have already moved to Chinese cities is absolutely flawed. Even if such an absurd thing happened, just because 405 million already moved doesn't mean another 90, or even 50 can come in and be freely absorbed.

In fact, analyzing urbanization rates alone in determining migrant in-take doesn't make any sense at all. We have to think about this from an economic and infrastructure point of view, since ultimately these migrants will need jobs and get around, and a high or low urbanization rate will not help them with either.


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

xote said:


> Obviously the Chinese government does not think so. Which is why they put up what might as well be pseudo-international borders within the country.


Really? They used to (called HuKou), but now the only restriction to going anywhere in the country is cost (bus + train tickets, rent in destination city). That's why most migrant workers go to the closest big city, even others may be richer and have greater opportunities.


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

hkskyline said:


> Your arguments do not come in line with what's happening in China today.


what is happening in china today? what is different now? why is everything going to collapse now? all the articles i read talk about job growth exceeding expectations, economic growth exceeding expectations, investment exceeding expectations.

China’s economic growth seen exceeding 11.5% in 2007
January 23, 2008

_Created 12 million jobs in 2007: *China’s stunning economic growth created 12 million new jobs in 2007* — more than the population of Greece and easily exceeding a government target.

The increase helped shave urban unemployment to four percent, down 0.1 percentage point, but employment pressures remain as 10 million more people enter the workforce in the world’s most populous nation annually, the China Daily quoted a top official as saying.

The job growth surpassed an official target of nine million set at the beginning of last year, Zhai Yanli, vice-minister of Labor and Social Security, was quoted as telling a press conference.

By comparison, just 1.3 million jobs were created in the United States, the world’s largest economy, according to US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

*Job growth in China has brought unemployment down from a high of around six percent in the late 1990s, when economic restructuring eliminated millions of jobs, it said.*_



hkskyline said:


> Shenzhen's rise has much to do with Hong Kongers' investments in the delta, with plenty of factories to take in out-of-province migrants.


foreign direct investment is up. noncoastal cities are starting to get a bigger share of investment. job growth is up.

China says foreign direct investment rose to US$83billion in 2007
4 days ago

_BEIJING - Foreign investment in China rose 13.8 per cent last year to US$82.7 billion, despite curbs meant to cool a boom in spending on real estate and other assets, data released Monday showed._



hkskyline said:


> We do not have job openings of 90+ million in the cities waiting for peasants to fill up.


i never said there was 90 million job openings. these kinds of things take time.



hkskyline said:


> In fact, analyzing urbanization rates alone in determining migrant in-take doesn't make any sense at all. We have to think about this from an economic and infrastructure point of view, since ultimately these migrants will need jobs and get around, and a high or low urbanization rate will not help them with either.


shanghai, beijing, guangzhou, etc are all basically quadrupling the size of their metros. migrant workers are still flooding into the cities. i'm not saying these cities aren't experiencing growing pains nor am i saying that there isn't high unemployment rate among migrant workers but things are improving imo and they will continue to improve. over the next few decades hundreds of millions of ppl are going to migrate to teh cities. it will all work out in the end.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

foadi said:


> what is happening in china today? what is different now? why is everything going to collapse now? all the articles i read talk about job growth exceeding expectations, economic growth exceeding expectations, investment exceeding expectations.
> 
> China’s economic growth seen exceeding 11.5% in 2007
> January 23, 2008
> ...





foadi said:


> what is happening in china today? what is different now? why is everything going to collapse now? all the articles i read talk about job growth exceeding expectations, economic growth exceeding expectations, investment exceeding expectations.
> 
> China’s economic growth seen exceeding 11.5% in 2007


Job growth is not the same as unlimited growth so millions of peasants can crowd into cities to enjoy the economic boom. China's boom is uneven. The rural population isn't enjoying much of that growth, while the cities on the east coast are seeing a huge new rise in wealth. As with any country's industrialization, the capitalistic approach brings a huge income gap, and this income gap is threatening the stability of the country.

12 million new jobs in 2007 is hardly enough to satisfy a rural population of 700 million. Sure, it's more than the population of a few countries, but that's hardly relevant when China is so large to begin with.

Urban unemployment is not just a count for low-income and low-skilled jobs. Shanghai and Beijing don't have much unskilled jobs to begin with. These are government and financial cities, which requires highly-skilled people. The low-skilled migrants work for more menial jobs, such as construction site labour. With the Olympics almost ready and infrastructure projects being scaled back to cool the economy, and recent measures to calm housing prices, thus stalling the private construction sector, the outlook for these peasants isn't so good, although it still looks quite rosy for the highly-skilled bankers.

From all the numbers you've posted, you still cannot make the link between how a few million new jobs can support a mass migration from a countryside pool of 700 million, of which even a 10% move will spell ultimate disaster. It actually solidifies my point that the cities cannot absorb such a wave, even though 10% is a small number theoretically, but the raw number is astronomical.

The rest of the world has never seen migrations at such a scale. It's far different from what the rest of the world had to cope with when they industrialized. India is likely going to see a similar problem.

Yes, there's more FDI going to China and the economy is growing briskly at over 10% a year, but that doesn't mean 10% of the rural population can move to the cities, and it doesn't mean the cities can suddenly support a few more million migrants with no skills. Where will they sleep? They certainly can't afford the nice housing that is popping up. I doubt many can find jobs - there is no such thing as an endless job pit for them. The relative analysis with the US is irrelevant. China's economic structure is far different than that of the US. Growth rates between industralized and developing countries differ by many *times*. Don't even bother analyzing by percentage point differences either. The population of the US and the amount of uneducated masses as a percentage of population also differ *significantly* from China. I don't see how America is dealing with their employment issues now as a First World country has much to do with how China is industralizing. Just because the Americans are creating over a million jobs a year doesn't mean China can do X times more because its growth rate is X times higher. It doesn't work that way.

The reality is, the rural migration potential is in the tens of millions just to be conservative. The cities cannot absorb them. Period. It's a huge wave and I don't think any city in the history of the world has ever coped with this size of a wave, even during war. The last thing we want to see is to have cities get such a deluge, then think of a band-aid solution to cope. That'll spell the end to China's 20 years of boom.


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

well i don't know what to tell you. people are going to continue migrating to the cities. the world is not going to end. migrant workers are going to continue having a high unemploment rate but they'll still find work and they'll be better off than they were on the farms. there will continue to be strong job growth in chinese cities. the urban population has been increasing by 13.5 million per year since 1978. this will continue for the forseeable future.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

foadi said:


> well i don't know what to tell you. people are going to continue migrating to the cities. the world is not going to end. migrant workers are going to continue having a high unemploment rate but they'll still find work and they'll be better off than they were on the farms. there will continue to be strong job growth in chinese cities. the urban population has been increasing by 13.5 million per year since 1978. this will continue for the forseeable future.


The question is not whether rural folks want to go to the cities or whether the rural folks are going to the cities. We know there is a move going on, albeit not a significant one in terms of numbers, but that can change rather quickly as the income gap increases. 

From a very selfish point of view (ie. capitalistic), yes, the rural folks see the riches in the cities and want to be a part of it, but from a collectivist (ie. communist) point of view, having millions on the move will jeopardize social order and even the food supply.

Does that mean rural folks should be forbidden from moving to the cities? Yes and no. Slap some controls in place to prevent a flood of people pouring into the cities, prepare the cities' infrastructure to deal with such a wave, and find better ways to maintaining a stable food supply and enough farmers to feed the agriculture sector.

Even at 13.5 million a year increase, the trains are jam-packed already. I can't imagine what can happen if the floodgates open. 

The key is to keep moving economic development west by developing the infrastructure, so there is less incentive for the rural folks to flock to the east coast, but it is just a band-aid solution as it just spreads the migrant wave to more cities, thinning it out rather than eliminating it altogether.


----------



## Mercutio (Oct 15, 2004)

> We know there is a move going on, *albeit not a significant one in terms of numbers*, but that can change rather quickly as the income gap increases.


I am not sure if I misunderstood you but are you saying the largest migration in human history is not significant in terms of numbers? It is being estimated that almost 200 million people have migrated from the countryside to the urban areas in the last 3 decades. Urbanization in China has increased from 20% to almost 50% by now!

Other than that I mainly agree with you.

I also feel that the so-called rural-urban divide is too often portrayed in black and white terms. Many articles give out the impression that the countryside is completely stagnating and life there is a living hell. Yet, the countryside too has seen significant growth and modernization since 1978. Naturally though, the pace of development has been slower there than in the cities. In addition, rural China was basically stuck in the medieval ages prior to the economic reforms whereas the cities were already consuming most of the resources during Communist times, in relative terms possibly even more than nowadays! That being considered, it is not surprising that the gap is now so wide. 


Particularly in wealthier provinces such scenes are not that uncommon:


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

What I meant was the present moves from countryside to city are at the edge of manageable, and that there is no major influx of rural peasants into the major cities.

Also the urbanization figure includes many cities that otherwise migrants may not be so interested in. They would include the interior and western cities that are seeing less activity than say, Shanghai or Guangzhou. For example, interior province migrants moved to Shenzhen and throughout the Pearl River Delta to work in factories, rather than move to their home province's major cities.


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

im sorry but you just have a static worldview. tihs is not a zero sum game. everyone will be better off in the end and urban areas will continue to expand.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

foadi said:


> im sorry but you just have a static worldview. tihs is not a zero sum game. everyone will be better off in the end and urban areas will continue to expand.


This is not a zero sum game, but it is not a mutually beneficial game either. You can't guarantee millions of uneducated and low-skilled peasants can be accounted for and automatically absorbed in the cities. Many will suffer, while a very few will succeed. That's capitalism. The wealth trickles down to the lower classes after the rich bourgeoisie takes a huge piece.

If the government lets the migrant flow go unchecked, then everyone is going to suffer. That's certain - the existing city residents will feel the crush on their infrastructure, and many of the poor who flood in won't find jobs and can't survive.


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

no most will succeed in the end. migrant workers have a very high unemployment rate - i've seen some reports say as high as 50%. but that doesn't mean things don't work out for them in the end.

look, no is is saying there aren't going to be problems. there are going to be problems as there have been in the past and there are now. but to suggest that chinese cities have reached their maximum capicity is absolutely ridiculous. thats like saying los angeles reached its maximum capicity in 1930 man.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*China vows to boost rural spending by $14 bln *

BEIJING, Jan 31 (Reuters) - China will spend over $70 billion on rural development this year, a quarter more than in 2007, as Beijing races to patch up crumbling dams, provide clean water and help narrow the yawning economic gap with its coastal boomtowns. 

Policymakers hope that boosting spending on roads, health, education and agricultural subsidies to 520 billion yuan ($72.40 billion) will temper China's growing income imbalance and help stem the flow of labour to its thriving cities that has drained some rural areas of more than half their workforce. 

The rise comes after China last year spent 420 billion yuan, exceeding its budget by 30 billion yuan as it subsidised seeds and equipment for farmers and extended rural infrastructure, Chen Xiwen, director of the Office of the Central Leading Group on Rural Work, which guides agricultural policy, said on Thursday. 

"As far as I know, the growth in 2008 will be larger than in 2007 -- it will be a growth of 100 billion yuan," Chen, who is also deputy director of the Office of Central Leading Group on Financial and Economic Affairs, told reporters. 

After decades of supporting its cities at the expense of the countryside, Beijing has changed tack in recent years to address the growing disparity between urban and rural incomes. 

China's State Council, or cabinet, on Tuesday issued a pledge to increase investment and make access to financing easier in the countryside, where incomes and economic growth have lagged that of the booming coastal cities. 

The document is traditionally known as the "No. 1 Document", to illustrate the importance of rural issues to the ruling Communist Party, whose guerrilla tactics relied on support from the peasantry before it came to power in 1949. 

In the last few years, China cancelled a two-millenia-old grains tax, removed other arbitrary fees, and reinstated free grammar school education. Although that has helped farming families keep more cash, it has also sharply reduced local governments' ability to pay for education and infrastructure. 

But the massive infrastructure needed to support its hinterlands is strained. 

Over 30,000 of China's 87,000 dams are dangerously unstable, water resources officials have said. Many were built as part of Mao Zedong's collective campaigns, but haven't been properly maintained after households regained control of their land. 

"In the last two or three years that I have been doing surveys in the countryside, there has been a quick rise in living standards," said He Xuefeng, professor at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology. 

"But some things, like the irrigation systems, are very poor and have gotten noticeably worse." 

Chen said the State Council wanted to begin working on some 6,200 severely deteriorating dams this year. 

China's actual spending in rural areas last year increased by 80 billion yuan from 2006. It exceeded the budgeted amount of 350.92 billion yuan for the army, and made up about 9 percent of the total announced budget for central and local governments of 4.65 trillion yuan. 

By contrast, the United States farm bill, currently under debate, is worth $286 billion over five years. 

MIGRANTS 

China has about 200 million rural households, the source for a massive exodus of migrant workers to the cities. 

Their remittances have funded new homes, motorcycles and televisions throughout the countryside, as well as school fees for the children and younger siblings left behind. 

"You can't just throw money at the countryside, because a lot of it has low returns or is wasted on pork-barrel spending. In supporting the countryside, we can't ignore the phenomenon of urbanization," said Zhang Ming, a professor of political science at People's University. 

He estimated that in some areas, between 50 percent and 70 percent of the population has already left for the cities. 

"A lot of them never go back, and in the second generation, even less so. In the cities, they have no housing, the situation is a mess, and there is no policy that helps them." 

In central Hunan Province and Chongqing, China is experimenting with relaxing the distinction between rural and urban 'hukous', a household registration system designed to prevent mass migration by denying city services to non-residents. 

Beijing is also lowering the barrier for banks to enter the rural market, to give farmers greater access to credit, and has told its two major agricultural banks to boost support. ($1=7.182 Yuan)


----------



## Whiteeclipse (Mar 31, 2005)

China created 12 million jobs in 2007, it seems China is creating more and more jobs every year which I believe the growth in consumption helped. 

So how many jobs do you guys think China will create in 2008. 

Also, do you guys think China should build more job skill training centers?


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

"Also, do you guys think China should build more job skill training centers?"

Does it have any? Mostly it's employer training and universities, which only a select few get into (the super smart kids).


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Don't think you need much job skills training when the masses are going into low-skilled jobs such as factory workers.

But then, there is a huge contingent of engineers coming out of Chinese schools. Those would be well-trained for the better-paying jobs.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*China launches new push to slow population growth *

BEIJING, Nov 20 (Reuters) - China has vowed fresh efforts to strengthen rural family planning, warning that measures to control population growth in the vast countryside face "unprecedented challenges". 

With the world's biggest population straining scarce resources, China has enforced rules to restrict family size since the 1970s. Rules vary but usually limit families to one or, in the countryside, two children. 

China credits the sweeping campaign to cajole or force couples to avoid "excess births" with keeping its population down to about 1.3 billion and helping to maximise the benefits of economic growth. 

But in tens of thousands of villages those policies were strained by growing mobility, lack of a social security net and "traditional" ideas about family size, the National Population and Family Planning Commission warned, according to the Xinhua news agency. 

Mobile families can avoid official checks, and those with money can pay fines or bribes to have more children. 

"At present, rural population and family planning work face unprecedented challenges," the commission and over a dozen other agencies warned in a document that called rural family planning "the number one tough task under heaven". 

"Stabilising low birth rates in the countryside is an extremely arduous task." 

In past years, China has been seeking to soften its draconian and often controversial family control policies, including forced abortions. 

But local officials remain under intense pressure to keep numbers down -- leading to skewed statistics, corruption and sometimes brutality. 

In May, thousands of villagers rioted in Guangxi region in the country's south, ransacking government buildings, burning cars and clashing with police, after being fined for breaching the one-child policy. 

The document urged officials to use rewards and encouragement to make population controls more "harmonious". 

Rural families who abided by controls should receive financial benefits promised to them, including support in old age or when a child dies, the document said. 

Efforts to spread old-age pensions to the countryside should also focus on families with one child or two daughters, it added. 

Tens of millions of rural migrants working in towns and cities needed better access to family planning and medical services, it also said. 

The government also promised less top-down control of family planning policies. "Protect the interests of the public, and implement self-administration, self-servicing, self-education and self-oversight by the public," the rules said.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

hkskyline said:


> *China launches new push to slow population growth *
> 
> BEIJING, Nov 20 (Reuters) - China has vowed fresh efforts to strengthen rural family planning, warning that measures to control population growth in the vast countryside face "unprecedented challenges".
> 
> ...


I think, after 2010, the population policy ´will do more harm than good in the long run. In the next 10 years, the labor potential of China will start to shrink. Peking's fertility rate stands at 0.7!!! That means, the population of peking could half every 15 years, if the gender imbalance is taken into account, or peking, now standing at 15 million, could have (without steady immigrationand if the shrinkage has accelerated to the 15 years halving time) 7.5 million after 15 years, 3.8 million after 30 years, 1.9 million after 45 years, and after only 60 years, peking would go under 1 million! Shanghai has an even lower fertility, i think! In the next 20 years, the shrinkage could be armotized with migration, but what is when all the people are in the cities and fall under the 1-child law???


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

^^

but farmers are moving in


----------

