G-8: RIP?

99 contd...
innovation has two parts...
a) identifying a problem b) finding the best of the solutions with or without existing tools/methods available....

finding some unique problem needs investigative mind...coming out with better solution needs thorough understanding on what you are working on and your intellect...indians are good at second part....

Re: # 88
DM...
Chinkus had seen ultimate of social chaos before the impostion of maoist government....once they feel that they need not be chained, they can transition to democracy...

Re: # 80
DM...
innovation does not mean, you do everything from scratch...you have to know the base technology, to innovate something on that...
indian offices of MicroSoft, Intel, HP, IBM, Google are doing good quality work.
Our college graduades or even postgraduates are not employable...but then, indians learns very fast....

OT----
Btw, People don't forget to read my review of Slumdog millionaires on UP...w/ one great clip of the movie too...Rani mirza is just having fun reading the review.

#80 Posted by dost_mittar on November 19, 2008 5:48:14 am


ebay or amazon did not require R&D


A lot of R&D from the IT/comp sci world goes into enabling high availability operations for something like amazon...

You have no idea what kind of work is being done in Intel India, ITIIAM or even google india...

please don't embarrass yourself further by displaying a complete lack of knowledge...

This was a discussion about a book
Out of Mao's Shadow: The Struggle for the Soul of a New China.
By Philip Pan –

This is what Minxin Pei responding to. And I think he used straw man to counter this. No one is perfect.

Philip Pan wrote (see below) to open the discussion on his book mentioned above. So the context is a little different. Phil Pan's basic argument was economic modernization does not necessarily lead to political liberalization, as China's experience has shown since 1989. Pei argued that it would happen and it is a matter of time. Just remember that China has no experience or very little experience with democracy and other freedoms that come with that.

Personally, I agree with Phil. It would be difficult to get to democracy in China. The Chinese military is a major hurdle and as long as they are insecure about their position Vis-à-vis US and Russia, democracy is just a hope in China, some liberalism but not much after that.

Phil Pan’s article.
“First, I have tried to debunk the common assumption that market reforms and economic growth will inevitably result in political liberalization in China. On the contrary, the Communist Party's embrace of capitalism and the prosperity it has brought to the country have strengthened its hold on power. In effect, a vast experiment in authoritarian capitalism is in progress -- and so far, the results have been terrific for the party, if not necessarily for all the people of China.
Second, I have argued that a momentous struggle is under way for China's future. I described the battles lines thus in the book: "On one side is the venal party-state, an entrenched elite fighting to preserve the country's authoritarian political system and its privileged place within it. On the other is a ragtag collection of lawyers, journalists, entrepreneurs, artists, hustlers, and dreamers striving to build a more tolerant, open and democratic China." And in the middle, I would add, is the vast majority of the Chinese people, sometimes indifferent, sometimes ambivalent, sometimes afraid.
I watched this struggle unfold on a number of battlegrounds -- over the party's control of history, of the economy, of the media, of the law, etc. -- and I have tried to describe it in the book through the eyes of several individuals who found themselves at the center of it. They include, among many others, a documentary filmmaker, an Internet entrepreneur, a rural party boss, a laid-off factory worker, a crusading newspaper editor, and one of the richest women in China. I chose to write the book this way because I like telling people's stories, but also because I hoped to underscore the idea that political change is not automatic. We sometimes hear people argue that democratization is inevitable in China, that when average incomes rise above a certain level, the nation will magically follow South Korea, Taiwan, and other authoritarian countries that evolved into democracies as their economies boomed. But in reality, political change is a difficult, messy and heartbreaking process, and it happens only because of remarkable individuals who fight, take risks, and sacrifice for it.
These people are often forced to make very difficult decisions, about how when to stand up for what they think is right and when to retreat in silence -- choices that might result in violence and police action against themselves or, perhaps even more agonizing to consider, against their friends and relatives. As we kick off this discussion, I would suggest that you think about what you might have done if you were in the position of some of the characters in the book. Would you have bothered to try to preserve the Cultural Revolution cemetery in Chongqing, as the former Red Guard Xi Qinsheng did? Would you have blown the whistle on the SARS epidemic, as the elderly surgeon Jiang Yanyong did? Would you have challenged the abuses of the one-child policy the way the blind legal activist Chen Guangcheng did? And what would you do if you were one of the lawyers trying to get Chen out of prison? When the government started hiring thugs to beat up the lawyers, would you have stood your ground and perhaps put your client at greater risk? Or would you have backed down and abandoned Chen? Believe me, I've asked myself that last question many times.�

#94 Posted by anil

This was a quote from Minxin Pei
"Most people make the mistake of assuming a parallel process of economic development and political liberalization, which is seldom the case."

He was making a point which is clear from the statement following the above comment. This was relevant to the discussion but may be a little out of place here.

Re: # 93

HP Sahib:

"...Most people make the mistake of assuming a parallel process of economic development and political liberalization, which is seldom the case..."

Most people actually accept that process of economic development and political liberalization are not parallel. There may be some overlap, and strong link that with increasing economic freedom comes political freedom. This statement means that political freedom trails and not being in parallel to each other.

#88 Posted by dost_mittar

Minxin Pei is a Chinese scholar working for Carnegie endowment right now.

“Although I agree with XXX basic argument that economic modernization does not necessarily lead to political liberalization, as China's experience has shown since 1989, I still believe that the complex relationship is not well understood. The key variable here is the time frame. Most people make the mistake of assuming a parallel process of economic development and political liberalization, which is seldom the case. Economic development can occur in a more linear fashion, but political liberalization tends to take place in a non-linear fashion. This process can stall for some time, but take a giant leap forward suddenly without any warning. That's because politics changes due to the build-up of pressures on the governing system itself.

But it is impossible to predict the breaking point beforehand for two reasons. First, the rulers can adjust, tactically, thus defusing the pressure a bit. Second, and more importantly, the tolerance level of the people is a fluid psychological variable. Nobody knows, really, how bad a government can get before it is overthrown by the people. If you think along these lines, you can definitely see that the Chinese government may be a repressive authoritarian one, but it is far more capable and responsive than most of its peers in developing countries. What this means is that it is too early to give up on the prospects of democratic change in China. This process has been stagnant since 1989 and the Communist Party has shown no signs of changing it. But when you read Phil's book carefully, you will see that the pressures for change are accumulating within the system. Although at the moment the Party can contain such pressure through selective repression and co-optation, this strategy will not work indefinitely.�

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/experts/index.cfm?fa=expert _view&expert_id=27
Minxin Pei is a senior associate in the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His research focuses on democratization in developing countries, economic reform and governance in China, and U.S.-China relations.

#88 Posted by dost_mittar
Long post on China Situation.

Try this site http://www.clb.org.hk/en/
Sometimes they report whenever there is trouble in China.

The following is a collection of many reports mostly Western sources so the accuracy is not guaranteed.

* on 26 May, police in Chengdu arrested people who witnessed them attempting to steal tents meant for earthquake-relief work; this sparked a confrontation between members of the public and the police

* on 28 June, over 10,000 people attacked government and party buildings and set fire to a police station in Weng'an county, Guizhou province; this action was related to a belief that a local high-school girl had been raped and killed by people with links to the government

* on 5 July, family members of a drowned driver in Fugu county, Shaanxi province attempted to seize the body of the deceased from police; this sparked a riot in which three police cars were smashed and seven people arrested

* on 9 July, several police officers in Yuhuan county, Zhejiang province were injured when over 1,000 migrant workers attacked their building; this was related to problems migrant workers had had in obtaining temporary residence permits in the county

* on 17 July, dozens of people were injured when members of the public clashed with the police in Boluo, Guangdong province; citizens had suspected the police of beating a motorcyclist to death

* on 19 July, rubber-plantation workers in Menglian county, Yunnan province held a protest; police opened fire on the demonstrators, killing two and injuring one.

The numbers below are amazing but may not be accurate.

How many such incidents take place in China each year? The estimate for 2007, collated by weighing a number of sources, is 80,000. But this number is hard to verify. The authorities strictly prohibit reporting on where incidents take place, their causes, the extent of casualties and the outcome of the conflicts.

The riot that took place on 28 June in Weng'an county was even more serious than the protests in Lhasa in mid-March 2008. In Weng'an, over 10,000 people directly attacked the party committee and government building, and the local police station. Images of the chaos spread quickly across the Internet.

After three or four days, however, there was a change in the climate. The Guizhou provincial party secretary Shi Zongyuan made a personal inspection tour of Weng'an and offered his views on the fundamental reasons for the unrest. His comments suggested that these went far beyond the ostensible trigger of the assault on the high-school student. Shi Zongyuan instead cited the way that the process of developing the mining industry in the area, accommodating migrants and relocating residents after their homes had been demolished had repeatedly infringed people's rights.

Shi Zongyuan apologised three times to the people of Weng'an for the situation in their county. The significance of Weng'an is that this is the first time that local officials have been the first to come under scrutiny following a "mass incident" (see Simon Elegant, "China Protests: A New Approach?", Time, 4 July 2008). After the initial riot, Hu Jintao himself - general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and state president - issued a memo on how the incident should be handled. This evidence suggests that the highest authorities were dissatisfied with the initial response to events in Weng'an at local level, and demanded an investigation into their root causes. The contrast between the immediate official reaction and what was to follow within a few days shows how the party's style of governance is evolving.

China's breakneck economic development since the mid-1980s has to a certain extent been founded on the premise that the state's monopoly on violence will protect the government and official institutions even as unfair burdens are imposed on the public. For two decades and more, Deng Xiaoping's mantra of "stability above all else" has been the highest article of faith at all levels of government. Those who protest or petition to the authorities - no matter the cause - can according in principle be accused of "breaching stability", and subject to legal repression.
The most common examples of this are the forced relocation of urban residents whose homes are to be demolished, and the appropriation of farmers' land in the countryside. The lack of any balancing power or democratic accountability has led to officials using ever cruder methods to deal with disputes. At the scene of almost all conflicts, the police tend to be out in force - as an instrument of state rather than of social protection. The use of state agencies as a tool in official hands is reflected in the way that the party secretary of Xifeng county, Liaoning province sent police to Beijing to arrest a journalist at a large newspaper who had written an article that the secretary found offensive (see Edward Cody, "Move to Arrest Journalist Sparks Backlash in China", Washington Post, 9 January 2008) . This is but one classic example of the abuse of police power with no regard for law or principle.
It is obvious that this form of governance cannot persist. Weng'an helps to show why, in three ways.

Re: # 81,
Absolutely agree with you on this. The beauty of the American system is its ability to smoothen the process of building businesses and in the long term, institutions, which the rest of the world seems yet to grasp. As long as it stays that way, the USA will remain the economic center stage as it is today.

Re: # 84,
"The "Milton Friedman model" of globalization is coming to an end."

While most of your posting is very agreeable, I would have to disagree with the above one.

Friedman's models as originally proposed did not include globalisation of capital, including the opaque places where they are held today. His model mainly dealt on fiscal responsibilities and there his model's results are there to be seen. Countries like China who have fiscal and current account surplus have been dealing with economic cycles much better than others that don't.

Re: # 86

How come my posting here (#86) was truncated?

HP#84:

"The changes in China will not be peaceful but mostly the problems would be internal. Economic progress and dictatorial style of governance cannot live together."

People have been saying this about China for a long time, but the Chinese have so far proved them wrong and may do so again. There is truth in the statement that it is difficult to control free(r) expression with the rising middle class. But the Chinese leadership recognizes this fact and have been steadily loosening up on their internal control. People are now allowed a fair amount of expression as long as they do not criticise the system itself. Let me give an example: recently, a frustrated man entered a police station and stabbed six policemen because they were corrupt and were harassing him; under Chinese laws, he would be killed and he probably will be; but what is significant is that there has been a strong Internet movement in support of the accused man saying that the man was justified as the police are indeed arbitrary and corrupt. It is commonplace these days for ordinary Chinese to vent their grievances before foreign journalists. I have no doubt that the Chinese leaders would keep opening the safety valve more and more until it gets close to where Singapore is today.

BTW, Milton Friedman did not say much about globalisation; his schtick was monetary policy; I think that he would have taken up arms against opaque instruments which have caused such havoc.

Re: # 84 ["...they had convened a Conference of leading ... bankers, and ... most of them did not know what a "derivative" was! ... [it] had gone beyond the comprehension of the players ... Similarly, ... when the sub-prime mortgages were securitized, they thought they were spreading risks and instead they were growing a crisis..."]

This reminds me of an interview in which Ron Paul claimed that several fellow members of his banking committee did not know that the US dollar was not backed by the US gold reserves. Such astounding ignorance by those in high places who, we assume know what they should know, is rather common place.

In 2003, the late BB, at a dinner hosted by a Paki doc in NJ, said of Pakistan's then somewhat healthier foreign exchange reserves that Musharraf was printing Pak Rs and buying up US dollars from the open market and thus had built up the reserves. I could not believe my ears and was dumbfounded at her utter ignorance.

...SR

Internet) are individual.

What Dost sahib terms as rote learning, I call as regimented process. Those who have been through regimented process and break into individual's space (the U.S.) indeed have disciplined and structured thinking, and if they ability to take risk and persist on it, do succeed. Institutionalized R&D does not deliver. Interestingly Cisco, and Microsoft all "acquired" small and innovative companies to build their portfolio.

This trend is beautifully captured by C.K. Prahlad in his latest book on collaborative creativity. The examples he quotes is that in the past all "large" companies went for owning patents to create barriers to entry, now companies network to create collective and unfair competitive advantage over competition. He quotes Apple's iPod and iPhone, where patents are owned by many suppliers, and not by Apple even though it created these devices. Collaborative Creativity thus creates a powerful advantage.

Fabless Semiconductor companies were the first one to master this concept. All of these efforts rely on harnessing individual creativity (=R&D), and use instutionalized resources. Hotmail founders, like many others in recent times relied on using Stanford's dorms, while others gathered in someones garage. The has been collaborative creativity. There are many more examples. India's IT industry itself is a great example of individual initiatives. There government bureaucrats did not understand it, and therefore, left it alone. Now they cannot "license raj" it any longer.