Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiEconomic Growth Has Failed Us. What's the Alternative?
Economic growth is supposed to deliver prosperity. Higher incomes should mean better choices, richer lives, an improved quality of life for us all. That at least is the conventional wisdom. But things haven't always turned out that way.
Growth has delivered its benefits, at best, unequally. A fifth of the world's population earns just 2 per cent of global income. Inequality is higher in the OECD nations than it was 20 years ago. Far from improving the lives of those who most needed it, growth let much of the world's population down. Wealth trickled up to the lucky few.
Fairness (or the lack of it) is just one of several reasons to question growth. As the economy expands, so do its ecological impacts. In the last quarter of a century an estimated 60 per cent of the world's ecosystems have been degraded. Global carbon emissions have risen by 40 per cent since 1990. Significant scarcity in key resources - such as oil - may be less than a decade away.
On the other hand, when growth stalls, as it has done over the past year, things go quickly from bad to worse. Firms go out of business, people lose their jobs and a government that fails to respond appropriately will soon find itself out of office. Dynamics are vital here. Continuous improvements in technology mean that fewer people are needed to produce the same goods from one year to the next. So if output doesn't expand, there is a downward pressure on employment and a spiral of recession looms. Growth is necessary within this system just to prevent collapse.
In short we find ourselves locked between the horns of an uncomfortable and deep-seated dilemma: growth may be unsustainable, but ‘de-growth' - a contraction in economic output - appears to be unstable. Questioning growth in these circumstances is deemed to be the act of lunatics, fanatics or idealists.
Business as Unusual
The prevailing wisdom calls instead for a ‘decoupling' of economic activity from material throughput. Since efficiency is one of the things that modern capitalist economies are good at, decoupling has a clear appeal as a solution to the dilemma of growth. And at first sight, this logic fits the evidence: global carbon intensity fell almost 25 per cent in the last couple of decades, for instance.
But efficiency improvements are continually offset by increases in scale. Global carbon emissions rose by 40 per cent even as the carbon intensity fell. We need to be decoupling much much faster. In a world of nine billion people, all aspiring to ever-increasing western incomes, carbon intensities would have to fall by over 11 per cent per year to stabilise the climate, 16 times faster than they have done since 1990. By 2050, the global carbon intensity would need to be only 6 grams per dollar of output, 130 times lower than it is today. Rethinking basic assumptions
In this context, simplistic assumptions about capitalism's propensity for efficiency are nothing short of delusional. A much deeper re-examination is called for. A different kind of economics is needed. The balance between consumption and investment, the split between the public and the private sector spending, the nature of productivity improvements, the conditions of profitability: all of these are likely to be up for re-negotiation in the new economy.
The role of investment is crucial. Sustainability demands enhanced investment in sustainable technologies and infrastructures, in ecological maintenance and protection. These investments are different in kind from conventional investments in labour productivity and they won't necessarily deliver continual consumption growth. A different concept of economic resilience is going to be needed. And the fetishisation of labour productivity will have to be renounced.
Fixing the economy is only part of the problem. Addressing the social logic of consumerism is also vital. This task is far from simple - mainly because of the way in which material goods are so deeply implicated in the fabric of our lives. But change is essential. And some mandate for that change already exists. A latent disaffection with consumerism and rising concern over the ‘social recession' have prompted grassroots initiatives to seek out ‘alternative hedonisms' - sources of identity, creativity and meaning that lie outside the realm of the market.
For at the end of the day, prosperity goes beyond material pleasures. It transcends material concerns. It resides in the health and happiness of our families. It is present in the strength of our relationships and our trust in the community. It is evidenced by our satisfaction at work and our sense of shared meaning and purpose. It hangs on our potential to participate fully in the life of society.
Prosperity consists in our ability to flourish as human beings - within the ecological limits of a finite planet. The challenge for our society is to create the conditions under which this is possible. It is the most urgent task of our times.
33 Comments so far
Show AllThanks teddy,
We are working together. Bring the troops home and put them to work for us instead of against us.
If you consider the alternatives there really is no choice here. It really is a matter of life and death.
The SUN is our source of energy. Not the corporations.
I worry for my grandchildren. I seek elegance. Am I wrong to be angry?
We must constantly ask ourselves, What does it mean to be human. Question mark or not.
I have an answer: we are idiots. We can survive only as a Collectivity. War is not the answer. Afghanistan is a cheap metaphor.. . for Empire.
Get the hell out. ASAP We are tainting ourselves by remaining.
-30-
Last two paragraphs of Mr. Jackson's post are excellent.
Bless
The point about Lord Kelvin circa 1850 is well taken, although my favorite year is 1848 which I associate with the publications of Marx and Darwin although I could be wrong, but also with a passle or wars and revolutions.
In any case, on this thread I think that what is meant by "economic growth" is really an undefined term. There seem to be many different underlying assumptions among the commenters.
Part of the cure must be a tax system that includes what were considered "externalities" such as air pollution. You know, back a few decades ago when people pretended the planet could absorb any punishment.
I also see that nobody here has yet used the term "redistributive economics," as though that is not what "economics" is all about.
There are ways to reduce "economic growth" without increasing poverty. At least one includes redistribution of income. One way to do this is to mandate, for example, a 30-hour week to reduce the level of unemployment. A living wage would also be nice. Also, strip all health insurance workers of their suits and ties and shoes and send them off to pick tomatoes. Bring home our troops and put them to work building solar panels, windmills and geothermal systems.
-30-
SUCH EXCELLENTLY PRACTICAL ideas, OleManRiver!!!
they are so excellent - it is amazing that they are NOT the NORM!!! but treated as if they were the plague!
Europe had millions of starving people after WWII, and so some priests and others were moved by pity to start worker cooperatives. In some terribly poor districts unemployment dropped from 30% to a steady 2%, or completely full employment forever. When the workers own their jobs, those jobs don't run away to mainland China like all the American jobs did.
The solution is, and always was, transparency.
Transparency = a level playing field.
The probability of a level playng field exisitng in the USA is about as likely as the Marines declaring Wall street a free fire zone.
The recovery in Australia is an illusion.
The banks are better regulated and did not indulge in financial fraud as much as did the cheating American institutions. So they remained strong enough.
Australia keeps digging up, burning and shipping out coal, despite the climate emergency that requires all coal to be left in the ground. So we have an illegal and fraudulent income, because of the cost of carbon dioxide emissions incurred. Agriculture and food self sufficiency is threated by increase in drought from climate change. The state government of NSW wants to let coal mining interests undermine productive agricultural areas.
Australia keeps chopping down its remaining natural forests for wood to be processed and pulped overseas. That is a time-limited once only capital to be eaten up.
Australia has the highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions in the world. We are a very expensive liability for the world.
Economic Growath is an idea that serves a need. It isn't a need of humanity. It is a desperate need of elites to reinforce their class hierarchy, to preserve their zero-sum privilege.
Even so, Economic Growath may still appear a benign idea that's safe and maybe even beneficial for the people. But it displaces better ideas, such as universal equity/justice. When these crucially important ideas are displaced from our minds and hearts by garbage/noise then we have a much harder time supporting them with our actions, even if we support them in principle.
The elites are fully aware of this as they recognize that "winning the war of ideas" is necessary to realizing their agenda. But this works both ways. The people can figure out what is best for the people by simply asking the questions: Do elites support this with their actions? If elites support economic growath, then economic growath is not good for the people. Because elites only support what keeps them in power/privilege.
"de-growth' - a contraction in economic output - appears to be unstable."
An extreme laissez-faire capitalist economy is naturally unstable at every point in time so what is the author's point here? He's at risk of reinforcing the elites' erroneous assumption that we have to rush to bring this catastrophic economy back out of recession so "everyone" can "prosper" again.
Instead of that, we need to let go of the elite's fake economy and embrace the REAL economy, which deals only in HUMAN NEEDS, not wants. The real economy relies not on funny munny but only REAL sources of wealth, mainly the human resource (give natural resources a rest please). The human resource has to be self-determined. The people have to achieve and defend rights to land, water, food, education, healthcare, shelter, transport, all low-cost, efficient, and sustainable.
So we have an economy that serves only the people's needs, which are fully recognized and defended as rights. The size of the economy does not perpetually grow according to elite fantasies. The economy remains relatively stable.
The author's idea that we need to stop focusing on labor productivity is a relevant one. Translated, it means we have to return to using skilled labor instead of mechanization. As we greatly reduce our consumption, this becomes highly feasible and desirable.
Now there is a general lesson the people have to learn: Connect the dots, i.e. make the connections between how/why we do different things so that they all serve our better interests seamlessly. Returning to skilled labor connects seamlessly into localism. We return to localism to eliminate massive waste of global activities (shipping, "great games", etc) (the author's claim of capitalist efficiency notwithstanding), and to shift the economic/political power to the people where it belongs, and to greatly enhance the quality of our economic activity (interconnecting it with our social/cultural lives). The skilled labor aspect resonates with all this in that it reasserts the function and value of people in the economy, and the economic value subsequently created for people resonates with the social value of people to each other.
How to do it? DEMAND local skilled labor production, for needs only, demand human needs become rights, and push elites completely out of the loop.
"Economic Growth Has Failed Us. What's the Alternative?"
*******************
The alternative is sustainable growth. The first step towards sustainable growth is to revoke the personhood of inanimate corporations. Corporate personhood is to economic health what cancer is to physical health, an out of control growth that will not stop until it has devoured its host.
Poet
Sorry but sustainable growth is impossible. A little math show that anything growing at 1% a year doubles in about 70 years, 2% boubles in 35 years. Note also that at 2% it doubles yet again in another 35 years. Exponential growth cannot be sustained for very long, whether it's population or consumption of oil. We need a shrinking population and an end to consumerism.
"whether it's population or consumption of oil. We need a shrinking population and an end to consumerism."
***********
Revoking corporate personhood isa first step towards both of those goals.
Poet
Poet, I couldn't agree with you more. However, we are then left with the 5% or so of the populace, who look like people, but do not act like people, as they do not know how. They are the psychopaths among us. We need a further mechanism to restrain them ---- they are very like corporations ---- no conscience, no empathy --- and they tend to float to the top because of this lack of constraint. What say you?
The saying goes "without all his soldiers Ceaser was nothing". Same for any person or institution of incluence. They derive their power from two principle sources: The willing following of compliant people and the indifference of the rest of us to their maintenance of the status-quo--in other words neglect.
Destroying corporate personhood and its attendent "rights" is a first step towards going after the status-quo. Proper education of people to both their responsibilities as well as their rights is next. Finally, progerssive taxation and restrainng regulation of excessive wealth and power is after that.
Poet
Our species plague has the usual graph in time
With the sharpest peak and thinning tails.
Together we multiply and commit against nature only crime
Until with our huge numbers all agriculture fails
Too many nations eat out the ecosystems store.
and sudden death will send numbers down to the floor.
Either we can control our numbers, or nature will. No organism, social or otherwise, can grow forever.
If the rich think they can buy their way out of this, then they're bad at math.
Well said.
The rich are delusional. They really do believe they can buy their way out of this.
You're so right.
What will to accomplish survival is a complete rewriting of the theory of economy. Adam Smith observed that labor is the source of all value, a theory that underpins the thinking of Karl Marx as well, but both developed their ideas before the promulgation of the laws of thermodynamics by Lord Kelvin in 1850 -- and well before the significance of those laws was confirmed and fully established by Max Planck in 1900. For more on this subject see:
http://www.eco.uni-heidelberg.de/ng-oeoe/research/papers/Faber%20et%20al%20AEE%201998.pdf
http://www.eco.uni-heidelberg.de/ng-oeoe/research/papers/JPEE_Introduction.pdf
http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/jointprod.pdf
http://events.it-sudparis.eu/degrowthconference/themes/3Second%20sessions%20panel/1Indicators/Friend%2...
The soviet bloc was not "no growth". They were trying to mimic and overtake capitalist consumer good production - this is what Kruchev meant in his figurative remark "we will bury you". But corruption, cronyism, disregard for the environment and no democratic controls on economic activity took their toll. In other words, the Soviey Union succedded in duplicating the effects of robber-barron Capitalism.
For you to credit environmental improvement and product safety on capitalism is absurd. The government had to drg them kicking and screaming all the way to any degree of responsibility.
good reply
"Prosperity consists in our ability to flourish as human beings - within the ecological limits of a finite planet."
A way to live within ecological limits is to follow nature's way and allot resources depending on what each living thing can defend. Throughout millions of years of life on earth, this natural system has left enough resources for diverse life to survive, adapt and evolve .
Money subverted this natural system by instituting great disparity in resource distribution. To restore the balance we could end extreme concentration of money and the centralization of power that goes with it.
The question is how? With tax laws written by and for the people with the most money and power? By electing the super-rich to power? By writing and calling our rich representatives? How can We the People get our government back from the money-power that bought it?
http://ni4d.us/
Economic prosperity has failed us. What's the alternative? -STOP. The alternative is internal growth. Then, STOP the internal growth and, EUREKA , GROWN.
How economic experts failed us!
one of reason why economic expert failed us, is the natural calamity happen in our nation. the expert having trouble to fixed the deficient of the economic.
Therapist
Gov't spending is what drove BV$H's admin. The difference was he just spent on his pals. Today Obama is spending on his advisors pals.
Obama is bailing out Dubya's pals on top of what he is spending on Rahm's pals.
Exclusive meritocracy where ALL of US are guaranteed the necessities: shelter, clothing, food, fuel, transportation and education, but luxuries only proportional to our performance (so that a superlative Memphis solid waste worker's rewards could even exceed a sorry Chicago excuse for a US "executive" like No Account President Obama)!
Homeostasis is the sustainable model, wherein growth is strictly limited by the fixed amount of energy delivered daily by the Sun. Growth by resource extraction is reaching its limits, and negative externalities are exceeding Earth's ability to absorb them.
Everything must change---technology, economics and sociology chiefly---if life as we know it is to go on much further. As the author concludes, successfully negotiating this transition "is the most urgent task of our times."
I agree with this.
GROWTH is something all nations aspire to or more correctly - TEND to - whether they consciously aspire or not.
but this is only according to their capacity to reach FULL DOMESTIC growth BEYOND WHICH the LIMITS of growth outside of a "body" - so to say - dictate whether that growth is beneficial or not - to the body itself or outside it.
if a cell "outgrows" itself and its natural confinces - it becomes cancerous. that is the result in the kind of "outward" growth that basically has "outgrown" its domestic needs or confines - which, in the system promoted by the United States and capitalism ALWAYS has to seek "frontiers" - which then clash with the DOMESTIC GROWTH needs to achieve FULL POTENTIAL of other countries.
china for example is spurring on to "growth" - but it be destructive if it outgrows its INTERNAL confines...and does not recognize the NEED of other countries to ALSO achieve THEIR INTERNAL DOMESTIC GROWTH FULL POTENTIAL.
when countries - in the future - achieve their DOMESTIC FULL POTENTIAL - there will be NO NEED to have to "go abroad" to EXPAND themselves outside of their natural confines - their internal FULL POTENTIAL is and should be ENOUGH for their health
and ANY TRADE GLOBALLY should be the result of the EXCESS of their domestic growth - traded for what other countries need -
in order to EACH OF THEM continue to achieve and maintain the HEALTH of their achieved DOMESTIC FULL POTENTIAL :
"FULL EMPLOYMENT< HIGH , EVER RISING WAGES, A SYSTEMIC SCARCITY OF LABOR" to ensure that MONEY CAPITAL Will NEVER be allowed to diminish the value of HUMAN POTENTIAL and LABOR.
in reality - countries do NOT need to "trade" in order to flourish. all they have to do is focus on their DOMESTIC GROWTH NEEDS - while never substituting THAT domestic consumption of their own wealth and produce and labor - for "global trade" .
if we need examples:
there are plenty.
Primitive societies NEVER needed MONEY to sustain themselves. the people in islands have existed for thousands of years withouot having to "invade" another for resources or "trade" or "capital" . they simply produced for themselves and consumed what they produced. PERIOD.
but the USA's DOGMA arose out of OVERCAPACITY of industry - which needed to "find markets" which it needed to justify in their cheapening and subjugation to FORCE foreign "markets"
TO ABANDON their OWN DOMESTIC ACHIEVEMENTS and aspirations to reach THEIR FULL DOMESTIC consumption potentials - producing and consuming THEIR own wealth and re-constituting them and recycling them over and over again without NEED for EXTERNAL "growth".
that was the great example given by the "HERMIT KINGDOM" of China for thousands of years - whose last emperor actually disdainfully told the
British Ambassador wishing to "open up china for england markets"
with :
"WHY should I do that? we are sufficient unto ourselves - and i am not interested in shiny gifts from england merely to allow my people to be subjected to england's merchants".
of course that's why MILITARY invasions were applied....
and SO - we have the WORLD AS IT STANDS TODAY - the age of global imperialism by the English and AMERICA.
which is really a project of DESTROYING INTERNAL , DOMESTIC ECONOMIES that were achieving or on the way to domestic stability that had NO NEED for further expansions but simply to co-exist with others - and trade only what they really DIDN'T NEED - if at that but which - that part was simply a MINOR function within the larger context of DOMESTIC STABILITY that does not harm others.
but the USA , through its capitalism, not only took after the European "spread far and wide" rapaciousness of grabbing resources - but also to spread its "market fundamentalism" ideology because ITS OWN DOMESTIC prosperity could not be "sustained" MERELY be CONFINING ITSELF to its own borders where ITS own consumers were able to consume what they PRODUCED
and why?
because of capitalism's OWN DRIVE TO THE BOTTOM FOR PROFITS
resulting in POOR WAGES - ever-LOWERING wages - and "desirable UNEMPLOYMENT".
Nov 6, 2009
Empty boasts of glory
By John Browne
To the delight of its media cheerleaders, the United States government last week announced that economic growth had returned and the recession had ended. But before we start celebrating one quarter of modest growth, we should realize the only force driving this apparent recovery is an enormous increase in government spending.
To finance its largesse, the government is now borrowing at a rate that has ordinary citizens and the international community extremely concerned.
Leading into the first election season under Barack Obama's reign, this unprecedented government borrowing and spending is creating a false sense of security. The activity has allowed gross
domestic product (GDP) to increase despite stagnation in corporate and consumer spending.
Small businesses, the most important creators of new jobs, are nervous. Due to uncertain economic conditions and a high degree of regulatory uncertainty, they are hoarding cash rather than investing. Indeed, their largest expenditures are often solely to replenish inventories.
Likewise, consumers are rationally hoarding their resources. Year over year, consumer spending, which constitutes 70% of GDP, is essentially flat. With such a large segment of the economy quiescent, the percentage increase in public sector spending has to be very large in order to push the GDP upward.
The new government spending spree has focused on major stimulus initiatives, including the new homebuyer tax credit and "cash for clunkers".
Early results are showing that spending on autos dropped to recession-levels immediately after "cash for clunkers" ended. Meanwhile, some reports are estimating that the program cost US$24,000 for every additional vehicle it caused to be sold.
The multi-billion-dollar tax credit for first-time homebuyers juiced real estate sales and provided a strong boost to GDP in the third quarter. But the net result is that many responsible young people, who had chosen to rent and save in the face of a declining housing market, are now saddled with mortgages they cannot afford. These "homeowners" will quickly join the ranks of the foreclosed.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of GDP growth is that, even with a deeply progressive administration spending our children's children's money, the best we can achieve is a modest, fleeting boost in growth. Even the government's biggest apologists have a hard time explaining how these gains can last without continued stimulus. In short, this country is not just bankrupt today, but for generations to come. This is the real truth and should concern those with investments within the United States.
The unhappy situation in America, of which we have long warned, should be contrasted with the healthy growth experiences of other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, China and India.
The Australian central bank is now so confident in its growth potential that it has raised interest rates two months in a row. Though they have a center-left government, the Aussies have managed to control stimulus spending and overall debt.
New Zealand is seeing an increase in real wages amid a strong Kiwi dollar. Much more than GDP, this is a signal that economic growth is truly returning to this island nation.
China, a place where 9% annual GDP growth is considered a recession, is still developing its market economy while Obama cripples that of the United States. Much fanfare was showered upon the launch last week of ChiNext, a stock exchange for privately owned, small- and mid-cap Chinese companies. It surged in its first day of trading, showing the strength of that economy even outside the state-owned enterprise sector.
Finally, there is India. Though still far too closed to foreign investment, this country is making shrewd moves to protect its internal capital. In a deal announced this week, India bolstered its gold reserves by 50% by trading $6.7 billion of its US dollar reserve to the IMF. Not only is this a positive sign for India, it is a crushing verdict on America's lauded "GDP growth".
A currency's value reflects investors' faith in a particular nation. Though commentators are seizing on this figure or that to make the bull case, the dollar index belies their claims.
Rather than dancing in the dollars falling from helicopters, we should be concerned about their worth when they hit the ground. Unfortunately, fiscal responsibility has moved abroad - and the smart money isn't far behind.
John Browne is senior market strategist, Euro Pacific Capital. Euro Pacific Capital commentary and market news is available at http://www.europac.net. It has a free on-line investment newsletter.
(Copyright 2009 Euro Pacific Capital)
Well said,
The growth is illusory becasue it is nominal growth. When the true value of the dollar is factored in, there is negative growth.
The following things are growing in the USA:
1) Cancer rates
2) Poverty
3) Pollution
4) War funding
5) Populist Anger at an unresponsive, corrupt government
"The unhappy situation in America, of which we have long warned, should be contrasted with the healthy growth experiences of other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, China and India."
To get people in the US to admit that they're not really happy no matter how much money they have is an arduous task by itself. Except for China, I think you are correct about the healthy growth in those nations.
Thank you for posting this article. There has to be some way to get the cornfed masses to value the quality of what's produced over the quantity. I wonder if going local on currency itself could solve a lot of problems.
YOU MIGHT be surprised that a few days ago - a global research of populations showed (i am just recalling as closely as possible, but it's pretty much the percentage) that
whereas in the USA residents, when asked, amount to about 25% quite happy with the state of the country and where things are going...and about how "government" or leadership is tending to the needs of the country.....
CHINA by contrast has about 80 percent of positive opinion by the population about the state of the country and the directions it is moving.
so - once more - another of the assumptions about say, china, as contrasted with america - especially in the opinion of populations about the state of THEIR country and THEIR lives - is already quite "old hat"...or perhaps, better put:
while an american might have the continuing opinion or information that "chinese citizens are UNhappy" or LESS "happy" as a whole than Americans are - or "FEWER in percentage are positive about their country than ARE american s about THEIRS"....
WHILE americans might still have BEEN thinking about it that way -- CREEPING under THEIR radar screen of opinion about china - is a SEA CHANGE of how the chinese perceive their reality and where they are moving.
i am quite certain, regardless of the differences in cultures, and politics , economics, history, etc....
that Chinese are at least as AWARE of their environment and what they need to do and WHETHER those are being done -
as are americans about THEIRS.
so - when one goes back to the STATE of a nation and how its leadership tries or does not try to satisfy the national needs or the population as a whole -- CLEARLY the chinese are far more positive about how their country is ordered.
I am trying to recall where I read that 2 days ago:
maybe -- asiatimesonline, alternet.org, truthout.org or here?
but - if it means anything at all :
oh , wait.....I recall the exact percentages now:
it was from a Washington DC-based Pew Research center study this year:
93 percent of the Chinese population respondents have a good opinion of international trade.
88 % of them believe that their country's economic situation is good
17 % of americans believe the same of the USA
14 % for France
10 % for Japan
the research further compared SATISFACTION of populations about their country among 25 nations:
87% for china
36% for USA
27% for France
25% for Japan
NOTE:
the standard of living in the 3 latter countries are much higher than for china
and YET there is a disparity of satisfaction. is it because the chinese are "easily satisfied" or because their lot generally has prospered (such as more middle class and a sense of confidence that the direction of the country is better)
while in the USA - the Middle is DISAPPEARING or in france - their labor rights and social welfare system are under assault. and that they seem to have exhausted anY 'growth' potentials , etc?
nonetheless it is clear that the chinese wqho have been accused , perhaps rightly too , over the centuries or FROM the record of centuries as a "hermit" kingdom of sorts - QUITE openly UNinterested in "outward expansion" but interested only in "keeping internal stability and order"...as one of the last Chinese Emperors once responded in writing to the King of England in the 19th century ..
it is clear that the chinese as a population are experiencing a kind of "renewal" of chineseNESS...which always emphasized the ability to ABSORB as PART of what BEING chinese is.
with NO fear at all of "losing chineseness".
it's almost like a paradox.
WHAT i find remarkable about china or "chineseness" , to put it another way is:
china always seems to have had the ability to ABSORB - and YET never lost "chineseness"..
i recall a remark a year or so ago by either the Chinese president or premiere: something like this:
"WE ARE OPEN TO ABSORBING AND LEARNING THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT THE WORLD...AND ALSO TO CONTRIBUTE WHAT GOOD WE HAVE ....
BUT WE SHALL *NEVER* BECOME WESTERNERS..WE SHALL REMAIN, AS IN THE PAST, TODAY AND FOREVER .....CHINA".
Teddy, thank you for shedding more light on China. I am surprised that they are still able to keep a positive upbeat despite all the near-slave labor persecution workers there are enduring thanks to the "Permanent Normal Trade Relations" scam. I can't say that communism in that nation was a good example of socialism but I would hate to see them bear the consequences of disaster capitalism. I think the Chinese will economically control the US sooner or later given the debts we owe China. I think China is taking our western practices and using it against us in ways we never expected. I wouldn't be surprised if China makes us like them. Oh, the irony. :)
P.S.: The soy in China is better than the soy in the US. Hint, soy is fermented in China while lazily unfermented in the US for profit's sake !