I've been thinking a lot about traffic in Beijing lately, and why it doesn't work.
First, there's the streets: there are plenty of wide, four to six lane roads, and plenty of narrow, twisting hutongs, but little in between. In between the broad boulevards are enormous city blocks that could have twenty thousand people living in them, as well as numerous shopping and dining establishments. But to get to the buildings within the blocks, you need to navigate through the hutongs with two-way traffic, bikes, pedestrians, and usually cars parked on either side of the road. Near the school where I teach on Saturdays, I often see six or seven cars backed up in either direction and two drivers in the center honking at each other until one backs down and ever-so-slowly tries to back up and let the other pass. This usually takes an inordinately long time because all of the drivers behind him have to back up as well. There's plenty of honking, but people I've talked to about this don't seem to think there's any solution, or that it's an inescapable problem of greater car ownership.
I beg to differ. If the government were to ban parking on the side of the road except for a few designated areas, the problem would ease enormously. China puts up concrete shells in no time flat, but I can't recall seeing an above-ground parking complex in Beijing. Surely the government could easily construct enough of these to accommodate cars that park on the street now.
And it's not just hutongs that have parking problems. I see lines of cars parked on the ring roads all the time. Can you imagine cars parking along a freeway in America? The ring roads run at full capacity for much of the day in Beijing, and there's a large cost in terms of time and money when people wait in traffic. Drivers might not like having to go out of their way and pay money to park in a parking tower, but as it is now everyone is paying for it in lost time, and for me on my bicycle, increased risk of death as I move out into the road to avoid cars parked in the bike lane.
I also think that the narrowness of your average hutong necessitates ditching two-way traffic. There's just no way to have an efficient flow of traffic when a whole line of cars literally has to back up and pull to the side to let another line of cars through - not to mention the inconvenience it causes the pedestrians and cyclists.
Like many of the other campaigns the government has undertaken to change people's behavior, I'm sure this wouldn't be easy to implement. But we are, after all, talking about a country which has (at least somewhat successfully) managed to control how many children a person can have. Surely they can tell you where you can and can't park you car. And if this serves as a disincentive to buying a car? We can only hope. . .
Now if I can only think up a solution to Beijing's preternaturally even population distribution (lack of a dense city center). . .
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Xiong Shi Lai Le (Here comes the bear market)
Or maybe not - the Dow doesn't seem to understand that the economy is in real trouble. First it went up four hundred points after Bear Stearns collapsed, then it went down a bit, then up two hundred points again. I just keep telling myself that short term fluctuations aren't really important, but I thought people would be running for the hills by now.
I have to say I'm disappointed that taxpayer money is being used to bail out a bank without the government itself taking possession of, and selling off, the assets. Dean Baker's commentary has been very illuminating with regards to this matter, and it's due to him that I know there are other options - what the Bank of England did with Northern Rock, for example.
The bottom line is, these bad loans are going to have their negative effect on the economy - we can't avoid it. Better to expose them now, deal with them, and move on. But the Fed seems to think putting Bear Stearns into bankruptcy would cause even more harm, despite the fact investors still suspect it's virtually worthless.
I wonder what the government of China thinks about the fact that it's 10 billion dollar investment was sold for pennies on the dollar in closed door, fire-sale meetings? And why are the top people at Bear Stearns not out on the street?
I have to say I'm disappointed that taxpayer money is being used to bail out a bank without the government itself taking possession of, and selling off, the assets. Dean Baker's commentary has been very illuminating with regards to this matter, and it's due to him that I know there are other options - what the Bank of England did with Northern Rock, for example.
The bottom line is, these bad loans are going to have their negative effect on the economy - we can't avoid it. Better to expose them now, deal with them, and move on. But the Fed seems to think putting Bear Stearns into bankruptcy would cause even more harm, despite the fact investors still suspect it's virtually worthless.
I wonder what the government of China thinks about the fact that it's 10 billion dollar investment was sold for pennies on the dollar in closed door, fire-sale meetings? And why are the top people at Bear Stearns not out on the street?
Random Thoughts On the iotsRa in ibetTa
Some bad, bad things happening on the roof of the world recently.
I'm temperamentally inclined to sympathize with the Tibetans, as is most of the world. Whereas most of China has been experiencing a dramatic increase in the amount of personal freedom they have (as long as it doesn't interfere with the Party), everything the Tibetans want (autonomy, independence, and the Dalai Lama) is anathema to the Chinese government.
It's also not hard to see why the Tibetans view the Chinese as oppressors - you can argue either side of the self-determination question, but there are many Tibetans alive who remember their independence, not to mention the depredations of the cultural revolution, and the still heavy weight of authoritarian rule than undoubtedly falls heavier on their shoulders than on those of the Han.
An interesting aspect of the current situation is the degree to which the Dalai Lama seems to be being marginalized by his own people. At least in public (and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity), he has always preached non-violence, sought autonomy not independence, and asked his followers to avoid causing problems for India by protesting. The younger members of the Tibetan independence movement don't think this "middle-way" is achieving anything, and want to push for more forceful methods (ironically still including "long live the Dalai Lama" in their protests).
But what do Free Tibet protesters in the US really want to happen? Do they expect America to install the Dalia Lama as the supreme leader of a theocratic government? It hadn't occurred to me until last week, but the Dalia Lama is still the head of the Tibetan government in exile, giving some justification to Chinese suspicions that he wants independence.
There's also been little in the way of condemnation of the violence against Han civilians and their property in Lhasa. Whatever the crimes of the Chinese government, surely shopkeepers ought not be the ones to pay the price. This thought brings me to another issue, the migration of Han into Tibet that has been described as cultural genocide. Certainly I can appreciate that when a place like Tibet receives a massive influx of outsiders eager to modernize, there is something lost in terms of the pristine, remote, austere quality that has enchanted so many visitors. But Tibet is not by a long shot the only place on earth confronting this dilemma, and it's not clear what the solution would be. If it were even possible, are we saying that non-Tibetans should be barred from moving there? I'm certainly not comfortable with such an idea.
There are also difficult questions with regard to America's "authority" to criticize China's behavior in Tibet - certainly nothing China has done compares to the complete decimation of the American Indian. And had we not killed them all with smallpox and straight-up murder I doubt that we would have respected their desire to live a traditional life free of strip-malls and gas stations. Are several generations enough separation from these horrible crimes to free us from a charge of hypocrisy? I don't know. These are complex questions, and that's really the whole point I was trying to make.
Of course, for now the solution would be for the Tibetans to stop killing Chinese civilians (I'm going to avoid digressing on whether or not Tibetans are Chinese and in what sense)and the government to stop oppressing the Tibetans, but that's about as likely a the US government not bailing out irresponsible bankers or sensibly ending the war in Iraq. Good night moon, good night China, good night Tibet, good night suffering and misery, you'll still be there when I wake up tomorrow.
A final thought: this article, nearly ten years old, is still awesome and incredibly poignant. I learned a lot about the Chinese perspective: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99feb/tibet.htm
I'm temperamentally inclined to sympathize with the Tibetans, as is most of the world. Whereas most of China has been experiencing a dramatic increase in the amount of personal freedom they have (as long as it doesn't interfere with the Party), everything the Tibetans want (autonomy, independence, and the Dalai Lama) is anathema to the Chinese government.
It's also not hard to see why the Tibetans view the Chinese as oppressors - you can argue either side of the self-determination question, but there are many Tibetans alive who remember their independence, not to mention the depredations of the cultural revolution, and the still heavy weight of authoritarian rule than undoubtedly falls heavier on their shoulders than on those of the Han.
An interesting aspect of the current situation is the degree to which the Dalai Lama seems to be being marginalized by his own people. At least in public (and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity), he has always preached non-violence, sought autonomy not independence, and asked his followers to avoid causing problems for India by protesting. The younger members of the Tibetan independence movement don't think this "middle-way" is achieving anything, and want to push for more forceful methods (ironically still including "long live the Dalai Lama" in their protests).
But what do Free Tibet protesters in the US really want to happen? Do they expect America to install the Dalia Lama as the supreme leader of a theocratic government? It hadn't occurred to me until last week, but the Dalia Lama is still the head of the Tibetan government in exile, giving some justification to Chinese suspicions that he wants independence.
There's also been little in the way of condemnation of the violence against Han civilians and their property in Lhasa. Whatever the crimes of the Chinese government, surely shopkeepers ought not be the ones to pay the price. This thought brings me to another issue, the migration of Han into Tibet that has been described as cultural genocide. Certainly I can appreciate that when a place like Tibet receives a massive influx of outsiders eager to modernize, there is something lost in terms of the pristine, remote, austere quality that has enchanted so many visitors. But Tibet is not by a long shot the only place on earth confronting this dilemma, and it's not clear what the solution would be. If it were even possible, are we saying that non-Tibetans should be barred from moving there? I'm certainly not comfortable with such an idea.
There are also difficult questions with regard to America's "authority" to criticize China's behavior in Tibet - certainly nothing China has done compares to the complete decimation of the American Indian. And had we not killed them all with smallpox and straight-up murder I doubt that we would have respected their desire to live a traditional life free of strip-malls and gas stations. Are several generations enough separation from these horrible crimes to free us from a charge of hypocrisy? I don't know. These are complex questions, and that's really the whole point I was trying to make.
Of course, for now the solution would be for the Tibetans to stop killing Chinese civilians (I'm going to avoid digressing on whether or not Tibetans are Chinese and in what sense)and the government to stop oppressing the Tibetans, but that's about as likely a the US government not bailing out irresponsible bankers or sensibly ending the war in Iraq. Good night moon, good night China, good night Tibet, good night suffering and misery, you'll still be there when I wake up tomorrow.
A final thought: this article, nearly ten years old, is still awesome and incredibly poignant. I learned a lot about the Chinese perspective: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99feb/tibet.htm
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Yellow Fever
As an American living in China you naturally tend to notice your fellow foreigners as you go about your life, and pay them slightly more attention than you would to a passing Chinese - something about being a minority I suppose. Naturally, you notice the large number of Chinese-American couples, and the extreme prevalence of the male LaoWai, female Chinese match, and you begin to wonder about the dynamics of interracial attraction and dating.
Well, wonder no more because someone better educated and more dedicated than myself has done the hard work for me. A new article in slate reports the results of an economist's study of speed-dating in a bar.
Unsurprising: Men value looks, and are reluctant to date a woman who is smarter or more ambitious. Women emphasize success and intelligence, and have no problem with being number 2.
Surprising: Men have little in the way of racial preferences, but women of all races prefer members of their own race. The prevalence of white man-asian women matches is explained by a Asian women having no aversion to white men, but being less likely to date blacks or hispanics.
Perhaps the greater prejudice shown by women stems from the fact that women, in general, have much more to fear from a prospective partner than a man (vis a vis rape, murder, assault), and this has the effect of bringing out racial preferences.
Men having less prejudice also makes sense in a way. I like to think I care about intelligence and personality foremost, but if I'm being cynical about my preferences I care far more about overall hotness than membership in a particular race.
Some film students in California have their own take on the phenomenon:
Well, wonder no more because someone better educated and more dedicated than myself has done the hard work for me. A new article in slate reports the results of an economist's study of speed-dating in a bar.
Unsurprising: Men value looks, and are reluctant to date a woman who is smarter or more ambitious. Women emphasize success and intelligence, and have no problem with being number 2.
Surprising: Men have little in the way of racial preferences, but women of all races prefer members of their own race. The prevalence of white man-asian women matches is explained by a Asian women having no aversion to white men, but being less likely to date blacks or hispanics.
Perhaps the greater prejudice shown by women stems from the fact that women, in general, have much more to fear from a prospective partner than a man (vis a vis rape, murder, assault), and this has the effect of bringing out racial preferences.
Men having less prejudice also makes sense in a way. I like to think I care about intelligence and personality foremost, but if I'm being cynical about my preferences I care far more about overall hotness than membership in a particular race.
Some film students in California have their own take on the phenomenon:
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Woman Billionaires
Another notable development:
Six of the ten richest self-made women in the world are in China. That's impressive, and important. Nearly all the richest women on the US Forbes list inherited their money.
Given that China is in many ways much more sexist than the US, how can this be? Chinese people readily acknowledge that the vast majority of man would consider it a total loss of face to have a wife who earns much more, and such women have a terribly difficult time. But maybe that's a contributing factor - once your chances of marriage have been crushed by your success, maybe you decide to stick it to the man by becoming yet more successful.
Six of the ten richest self-made women in the world are in China. That's impressive, and important. Nearly all the richest women on the US Forbes list inherited their money.
Given that China is in many ways much more sexist than the US, how can this be? Chinese people readily acknowledge that the vast majority of man would consider it a total loss of face to have a wife who earns much more, and such women have a terribly difficult time. But maybe that's a contributing factor - once your chances of marriage have been crushed by your success, maybe you decide to stick it to the man by becoming yet more successful.
Chinese Billionaires
Last year, there were 15. This year there are over 100. It's astounding, mind-boggling, jaw-dropping, and staggering. Of course, it could all come crashing down (as, if fairness, could any newly-minted billionaire coming off their IPO in the western world).
PetroChina is now bigger than Exxon Mobile. Alibaba raised almost as much as Google in it's IPO. The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is now the largest bank by market cap. Supposedly (can't find the link) 5 of the 10 largest companies in the world by market cap are Chinese.
Certainly the composition of the Chinese market must be different than the US. China's economy is about 10.2 trillion USD (2006) if you look at purchasing power parity, and 2.2 trillion (2007) at exchange rates, while the US is north of 13 trillion. I suspect the US has many more companies that are very large, but not the giant state-run behemoths of China (both PetroChina, and ChinaMobile, for example, were government run and still partially government owned).
I've been thinking the amount of inequality must be much higher in China than in the US, given how a college grad here subsists on something like 1500-3000 RMB per month, and yet there are $100,000 (including import tax) BMWs plying the roads, but this study, cited by Yglesias, says I'm wrong.
I thought this must be bunk in view of what I see every day, and I thought the number of billionaires must surely be evidence of this, but I don't think so.
China's per capita (PPP) GDP of $7800 in 2006 is about 5.5 times less than the US total of $43,500. Given that China has about five times the population of the US, I'm tempted to think that those two factors should balance out, and the number of billionaires be about the same if inequality is also relatively the same, but China only has 1/4 as many. I suspect the fact that this study found inequality to be about the same in both countries has to do with the vast difference in wealth between the middle class (who are still poor relative to Westerners), and the peasants, who are dirt-poor. Of course, it's not that simple, and it all depends on how exactly the national wealth is distributed, and I really don't know all that much about it.
Interesting though. . .
PetroChina is now bigger than Exxon Mobile. Alibaba raised almost as much as Google in it's IPO. The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is now the largest bank by market cap. Supposedly (can't find the link) 5 of the 10 largest companies in the world by market cap are Chinese.
Certainly the composition of the Chinese market must be different than the US. China's economy is about 10.2 trillion USD (2006) if you look at purchasing power parity, and 2.2 trillion (2007) at exchange rates, while the US is north of 13 trillion. I suspect the US has many more companies that are very large, but not the giant state-run behemoths of China (both PetroChina, and ChinaMobile, for example, were government run and still partially government owned).
I've been thinking the amount of inequality must be much higher in China than in the US, given how a college grad here subsists on something like 1500-3000 RMB per month, and yet there are $100,000 (including import tax) BMWs plying the roads, but this study, cited by Yglesias, says I'm wrong.
I thought this must be bunk in view of what I see every day, and I thought the number of billionaires must surely be evidence of this, but I don't think so.
China's per capita (PPP) GDP of $7800 in 2006 is about 5.5 times less than the US total of $43,500. Given that China has about five times the population of the US, I'm tempted to think that those two factors should balance out, and the number of billionaires be about the same if inequality is also relatively the same, but China only has 1/4 as many. I suspect the fact that this study found inequality to be about the same in both countries has to do with the vast difference in wealth between the middle class (who are still poor relative to Westerners), and the peasants, who are dirt-poor. Of course, it's not that simple, and it all depends on how exactly the national wealth is distributed, and I really don't know all that much about it.
Interesting though. . .
Sunday, October 21, 2007
I've Been Rivercrabbed!
Well, not yet, fortunately.
Homonyms are very important in China. They show up in superstitions, for example; you don't give someone four gifts because four sounds like death in Chinese; nor do you give a clock, because that sounds like "sending someone to the end," which I've heard can describe attending a funeral.
Today's youth, what with their crazy music and their websites, use homonyms to avoid the net-nanny. Referencing chairman Hu's "harmonious society" program, bloggers have begun to refer to being censored as being harmonized. Of course, if you're going to censor the internet, you're not going to let people say whatever they want about it, or even acknowledge that it's happening; so now the word "harmony" (he xie) is a commonly blocked word on large Chinese blogging sites.
But those naughty netizens, they've found a way around it. Instead, they talk about river crab, which is only one tone different from harmony, and apparently the censors are still none the wiser. I guess you could call it teenage rebellion with Chinese characteristics.
Homonyms are very important in China. They show up in superstitions, for example; you don't give someone four gifts because four sounds like death in Chinese; nor do you give a clock, because that sounds like "sending someone to the end," which I've heard can describe attending a funeral.
Today's youth, what with their crazy music and their websites, use homonyms to avoid the net-nanny. Referencing chairman Hu's "harmonious society" program, bloggers have begun to refer to being censored as being harmonized. Of course, if you're going to censor the internet, you're not going to let people say whatever they want about it, or even acknowledge that it's happening; so now the word "harmony" (he xie) is a commonly blocked word on large Chinese blogging sites.
But those naughty netizens, they've found a way around it. Instead, they talk about river crab, which is only one tone different from harmony, and apparently the censors are still none the wiser. I guess you could call it teenage rebellion with Chinese characteristics.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Another Looming Problem
I have pondered what it will be like for the children of the one-child generation - they will have no aunts and uncles, and thus no cousins. Just parents, and grandparents.
Via Megan Mcardle, Nicholas Eberstadt wonders what will happen when what is already a low-trust society (and one in which family ties are considered very important) has no familial ties between the 20-40 cohort.
I'm at once both intrigued and skeptical. While I like my cousins, and knowing them probably somewhat advantageous, I haven't found those connections to be crucial channels for getting jobs or business ties. Of course, I'm 26, so I haven't really had time to tap those connections for business purposes, but it doesn't seem like my dad, or most other adults I know heavily rely on cousin connections. The sibling connection, which has already been lost, seems much more important.
Of course, China is a very different place, and family-based business ties make up a large percentage of the total, so I guess we'll see.
Via Megan Mcardle, Nicholas Eberstadt wonders what will happen when what is already a low-trust society (and one in which family ties are considered very important) has no familial ties between the 20-40 cohort.
I'm at once both intrigued and skeptical. While I like my cousins, and knowing them probably somewhat advantageous, I haven't found those connections to be crucial channels for getting jobs or business ties. Of course, I'm 26, so I haven't really had time to tap those connections for business purposes, but it doesn't seem like my dad, or most other adults I know heavily rely on cousin connections. The sibling connection, which has already been lost, seems much more important.
Of course, China is a very different place, and family-based business ties make up a large percentage of the total, so I guess we'll see.
The Japanese are CRAZY!
But in all the right ways. From their wacky cartoons (and their disturbing pornographic cousins), to Iron Chef, the crazy game shows*, all the robots, and now dresses that can disguise you as a vending machine if you're attacked.
Seriously though, it's impressive that you can store that costume in a skirt. Not too believable in daylight, but at night? who knows.
It's good to know our wacky brethren over there are continuing to be themselves.
* especially the one that Stephen Colbert constantly shows clips of, where a bunch of girls with steaks strapped to their heads are sticking their heads through holes in a cage containing a monitor, and when it runs towards them they flip out.
Seriously though, it's impressive that you can store that costume in a skirt. Not too believable in daylight, but at night? who knows.
It's good to know our wacky brethren over there are continuing to be themselves.
* especially the one that Stephen Colbert constantly shows clips of, where a bunch of girls with steaks strapped to their heads are sticking their heads through holes in a cage containing a monitor, and when it runs towards them they flip out.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
I'm Free!
Sweet. Dan Wei informed me blogger is now accessible in China, and I'm pleased as punch. Unfortunately, it happened at the same time that YouTube has been blacklisted. Something to do with the 17th party congress? Who knows. Given that I don't actually need to read my own blog, I think I'd rather have YouTube.
Of course, what I'd really like is for China to take a more targeted approach to Internet censorship. Censoring all of YouTube and the entire Wikipedia borders on the ridiculous.
Of course, what I'd really like is for China to take a more targeted approach to Internet censorship. Censoring all of YouTube and the entire Wikipedia borders on the ridiculous.
My Worst Fear in Beijing
Ryan and two of my friends recently had a cab driver who they were sure had just started driving - he slammed on the brakes several times, and exhibited little control over the car. And he didn't know where the train station was. The fact that such people are driving several thousand pounds of metal around scares me.
To really make good time getting anywhere here in Beijing, you have to ride, walk, or drive aggressively. Now, I never just run through the intersection on during a green light like this guy did, but one mistake and you are TOAST.
It's kind of refreshing to know that they'd actually show it on TV. In the US, we'd mention it, show the twisted bicycle, and the rest, but never in a million years would NBC or CBS show some AARP-type getting blasted fifty feet off his bicycle and dying. But that video will be in my head next time I'm biking the mean streets of Xi Cheng, and it just might result in that extra bit of caution that saves my life.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Oy Vay
A girl I know recently bought herself this cute little QQ car (think Chinese mini-cooper) for 40,000 RMB, or a little more than five grand. I was envious for a moment. It would be nice to be able to cruise around Beijing, especially when it's raining, or you want to go somewhere relatively far.
Then I saw this blog post, and these videos.
It seems that the "crumple zone" in these cars is the drivers seat. Damn.
Also awesome is the flying piece of glass at the end of the second video. Take that, bystander!
Then I saw this blog post, and these videos.
It seems that the "crumple zone" in these cars is the drivers seat. Damn.
Also awesome is the flying piece of glass at the end of the second video. Take that, bystander!
Brits Get Rich in China
Stumbled upon this documentary that has been uploaded to YouTube, and it's just awesome. It follows three British guys around as they try to make money in China, and all the obstacles they run up against.
One guy has given 100,000 pounds to a factory owner for an order and the guy writes back that he doesn't have it ready, and he's already spent all the money. The British dude heads out to the factory to find that this guy has built a pool, and swank office, and a new house for himself. After all this, and after the factory owner tries to get him to try a local delicacy (fried donkey dong), which the British dude suspects is intended to humiliate him, he still stays in business with him. Bizarre. Also really, really scary. I'm sort of thinking of trying to start a business here, and I certainly don't have $200,000 I can afford to lose. What do I do when a factory owner steals my money?
And why doesn't he sue? One quibble - the documentary states that China has extremely lax IP laws. From what I read on China Law Blog, that's not at all true. The laws are totally up to Western standards. It's the enforcement that's the issue - the central government has trouble keeping local officials in line, and it's hard to know exactly who is in charge of what in China.
The documentary did give me some hope of finding a job in China though. None of these three guys lives in China or speaks Chinese. The guy who lost money to the factory boss has been in China the longest and seems to be coping best. He has a Chinese assistant who speaks some English, but needs to go himself on all these factory inspections. It seems to me that all of these guys would need, or would benefit from, a Western representative there. I can't fully communicate with Chinese businessmen, though I'm pretty good. Their Chinese assistants, while their English is good, can't fully communicate with their bosses, or directly communicate with Western clients. If you had both on site, that would be a powerful combination.
You can see all 7 parts here
Sexy Beijing
In The Four Hour Workweek, Tim Ferriss recommends designing products and services for groups that you yourself are a part of, the idea being that it's too hard to try and understand people who are different, and much easier to simply sell to people of a similar class, culture, and lifestyle.
At first this line of thought didn't seem to mesh well with my current situation; I'm surrounded by a billion Chinese, who can cheaply produce things for my compatriots back home, but there are relatively few people who are like I am at the moment - an expat in China. But as I've been reading more and more expat blogs I've discovered that the community here is fairly well connected, and there's even original content being produced almost entirely for expat-in-china consumption - case in point Sexy Beijing.
Quite a bit of time and energy has gone into the production of these segments, and they're pretty entertaining as well - but you all probably won't find them quite as amusing as I. After all, you aren't here, are you? The opening sequence is a damn good Sex in the City imitation though.
At first this line of thought didn't seem to mesh well with my current situation; I'm surrounded by a billion Chinese, who can cheaply produce things for my compatriots back home, but there are relatively few people who are like I am at the moment - an expat in China. But as I've been reading more and more expat blogs I've discovered that the community here is fairly well connected, and there's even original content being produced almost entirely for expat-in-china consumption - case in point Sexy Beijing.
Quite a bit of time and energy has gone into the production of these segments, and they're pretty entertaining as well - but you all probably won't find them quite as amusing as I. After all, you aren't here, are you? The opening sequence is a damn good Sex in the City imitation though.
Friday, October 12, 2007
The Richest Person in China
Is my age. Jesus god almighty. Apparently her father, who started a property development company in Guangdong, gave her all of his shares, worth some 16 billion dollars, making her the richest person in China. Crazy stuff; stuff that can only happen in a place as crazy as China.
Last year, the richest man in China was Huang Guangyu, who had 2.6 billion dollars. His wealth has increased by a cool billion, but he's fallen to number 10. Last year, less than half of the Forbes 40 list were billionaires, and their combined wealth was less than Warren Buffet's. This year, they're all billionaires, and the first 10 can surpass Buffet. Tells you something about inequality in China, which is already worse than in the US, and rising faster.
It seems China's wealth rankings have all the stability of world hotdog eating rankings. While I'm attracted to the idea of starting a company here and trying to cash in on this rising tide, there is definitely some bubbling happening. Half the list of richest people are property developers, and property prices around China are going gangbusters. Of course, Chinese banks are notorious for making bad loans, and the recent troubles in the US are all you need to remind yourself that these upward trajectories are anything but permanent. But for a generation of Chinese who have experienced three decades of year over year improvements, these sorts of thoughts aren't don't come easily.
If I were investing in China right now, I would be all about taking profits at regular intervals and waiting with some cash on the sidelines for when a crash does come. . .
Last year, the richest man in China was Huang Guangyu, who had 2.6 billion dollars. His wealth has increased by a cool billion, but he's fallen to number 10. Last year, less than half of the Forbes 40 list were billionaires, and their combined wealth was less than Warren Buffet's. This year, they're all billionaires, and the first 10 can surpass Buffet. Tells you something about inequality in China, which is already worse than in the US, and rising faster.
It seems China's wealth rankings have all the stability of world hotdog eating rankings. While I'm attracted to the idea of starting a company here and trying to cash in on this rising tide, there is definitely some bubbling happening. Half the list of richest people are property developers, and property prices around China are going gangbusters. Of course, Chinese banks are notorious for making bad loans, and the recent troubles in the US are all you need to remind yourself that these upward trajectories are anything but permanent. But for a generation of Chinese who have experienced three decades of year over year improvements, these sorts of thoughts aren't don't come easily.
If I were investing in China right now, I would be all about taking profits at regular intervals and waiting with some cash on the sidelines for when a crash does come. . .
Randy? Gone?
Man, 2007 has already been such a crazy, crazy year for MMA - George St. Pierre getting knocked out by Matt Serra, Crocop getting KO'd with a high kick, Randy Couture reclaiming and defending the heavyweight belt at 43, and now the ageless warrior leaving the UFC.
UFCmania has a good rundown on Couture's reasons for leaving, and all I can saw is that both this departure and the UFC's failure to sign Fedor Emelianenko has me seriously questioning Dana White and Lorenzo Fertitta's sanity. I have nothing but respect for how they have brought the sport into the popular consciousness, and gotten it on live TV, but now that they are rolling in money it would seem to be the time to pay the top talent what they demand and create a true "superbowl of mixed martial arts."
Instead, they have failed to sign the man who anyone in the know would consider the baddest man on earth and lost their most popular fighter. This is a sad, sad day for the sport.
UFCmania has a good rundown on Couture's reasons for leaving, and all I can saw is that both this departure and the UFC's failure to sign Fedor Emelianenko has me seriously questioning Dana White and Lorenzo Fertitta's sanity. I have nothing but respect for how they have brought the sport into the popular consciousness, and gotten it on live TV, but now that they are rolling in money it would seem to be the time to pay the top talent what they demand and create a true "superbowl of mixed martial arts."
Instead, they have failed to sign the man who anyone in the know would consider the baddest man on earth and lost their most popular fighter. This is a sad, sad day for the sport.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Wonderful World of Visas
Deciding to leave Beijing Normal and study on our own has been somewhat of an adventure ; there's some risk that we won't learn as much, but it could be much better, and we can earn more teaching, spend more time looking for a job, and study for the LSAT in December. Unfortunately though, it means no visa.
And the Olympic fever that has swept through Beijing has finally infected the visa office as well. Normally, visa consultants can get you a year-long business visa for about 2500 RMB, but since July that's no longer possible, and I have to settle for six months. I could live with that, but the restrictions are going to tighten further in the coming months. I'll be able to extend that visa again until June, but after that nobody is getting a business visa for anything less than an invitation letter from a major multinational. And tourist visas will only be given for 30 days (in Hong Kong, Americans have never been able to get them for more than that - Europeans, no problem). And no extensions.
Beijing welcomes you to the 2008 Olympic games! Come to China! Now GET OUT!
And the Olympic fever that has swept through Beijing has finally infected the visa office as well. Normally, visa consultants can get you a year-long business visa for about 2500 RMB, but since July that's no longer possible, and I have to settle for six months. I could live with that, but the restrictions are going to tighten further in the coming months. I'll be able to extend that visa again until June, but after that nobody is getting a business visa for anything less than an invitation letter from a major multinational. And tourist visas will only be given for 30 days (in Hong Kong, Americans have never been able to get them for more than that - Europeans, no problem). And no extensions.
Beijing welcomes you to the 2008 Olympic games! Come to China! Now GET OUT!
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Impenetrable Chinese Politics
I don't think I will ever understand how the Chinese political system actually works.
According to the NY Times, there's a deadlock of sorts among the upper echelons of the Communist party over who will succeed Hu JinTao at the end of his next five year term in 2012. What's interesting to me is that his opposition comes from Jiang ZeMin, the former CCCP chairman (why do we call them the president of China?), who is now 80, and holds no official office. Apparently his stature and authority is still enough to effectively veto the man who currently is supposed to run the country.
Now I understand that on some level all power is based on a perception of authority. Civil disobedience, behind-the-scenes revolts, walkouts, and even coupes do happen. Less dramatically, when there is a question of authority or power in government, one party will often step forward and just assume the power in question; think Marbury vs. Madison, or whichever president it was that decided declarations of war are not necessary for sending out the army.
That said, I don't think for a moment that Bill Clinton could do anything whatsoever to hinder George Bush in exercising his powers. Bush, after all, claims that he has the power to do virtually anything he wants for national security reasons. Despite massive opposition from the population, Congress, and even higher levels of the military, most people agree that Bush has the legal authority to start bombing Iran if he so chooses, and I'm pretty sure that the soldiers would go along with it, even if there were some opposition voiced.
In China, not so. We often assume that the CCP, or the people in charge of it can do whatever they want, and aren't hindered by checks and balances that constrain politicians in the west. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In many ways, even the top officials in China are much more constrained in terms of what they can actually do than a President or Prime Minister of a western country.
Here's the most interesting line of the article, referring to Zeng Qinghong, who was Jiang Zemin's right hand man, but who Hu still wants to keep around:
If the chairman of the party doesn't get it, there's not much hope for me.
According to the NY Times, there's a deadlock of sorts among the upper echelons of the Communist party over who will succeed Hu JinTao at the end of his next five year term in 2012. What's interesting to me is that his opposition comes from Jiang ZeMin, the former CCCP chairman (why do we call them the president of China?), who is now 80, and holds no official office. Apparently his stature and authority is still enough to effectively veto the man who currently is supposed to run the country.
Now I understand that on some level all power is based on a perception of authority. Civil disobedience, behind-the-scenes revolts, walkouts, and even coupes do happen. Less dramatically, when there is a question of authority or power in government, one party will often step forward and just assume the power in question; think Marbury vs. Madison, or whichever president it was that decided declarations of war are not necessary for sending out the army.
That said, I don't think for a moment that Bill Clinton could do anything whatsoever to hinder George Bush in exercising his powers. Bush, after all, claims that he has the power to do virtually anything he wants for national security reasons. Despite massive opposition from the population, Congress, and even higher levels of the military, most people agree that Bush has the legal authority to start bombing Iran if he so chooses, and I'm pretty sure that the soldiers would go along with it, even if there were some opposition voiced.
In China, not so. We often assume that the CCP, or the people in charge of it can do whatever they want, and aren't hindered by checks and balances that constrain politicians in the west. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In many ways, even the top officials in China are much more constrained in terms of what they can actually do than a President or Prime Minister of a western country.
Here's the most interesting line of the article, referring to Zeng Qinghong, who was Jiang Zemin's right hand man, but who Hu still wants to keep around:
But they say that Mr. Hu has sought to retain Mr. Zeng. This is partly because Mr. Hu’s grasp of the party’s internal workings remains incomplete, they say.
If the chairman of the party doesn't get it, there's not much hope for me.
Stupid Ideas
I love Christopher Hitchens. I love his constant skewering of religion, is wit, his unapologetic love of drink and cigarettes, and, usually, his thoughts. Lately though, we've been diverging - his continued insistence that the Iraq war is a good thing is annoying, but his reasons are at least not as banal as those of most war supporters these days. His latest though, a call for us to boycott the Beijing Olympics, strikes me as fairly retarded.
First of all, shouldn't we have brought all these things up before the Olympics was awarded to Beijing? I'm sure the critics did, but they lost, and it's time to move on.
The real problem with this thinking is the arrogance and hypocrisy behind it. The US has only recently invaded another country for reasons that turned out to be false, and was opposed BY NEARLY THE ENTIRE WORLD for doing so. We also support, and have supported our own cast of unsavory types for reasons ranging from mere convenience to "geostrategic concerns." Does that make us ineligible to host the Olympics? And what do the Olympics even mean if the country that produces all of our cheap electronics and clothes, and has more nearly a fifth of the world's population can't host?
We've made the decision to recognize, conduct diplomacy, and trade with the PRC. Drawing the line at playing games with them doesn't make much sense. And if we've learned anything from the Iraq debacle, it's that yes, world opinion does count, and US power is not the end all to beat all of getting stuff done. China's population will be PISSED if we decide we're too good to come to their coming out party, and that will have long-term, far reaching consequences. The consequences might be worth it if there was a decent payoff - but ask yourself how many times the Chinese have caved to this type of threat. Would America?
James Fallows, who's blog I consistently enjoy and makes me actually consider shelling out to subscribe the The Atlantic, says all of the above better than I.
First of all, shouldn't we have brought all these things up before the Olympics was awarded to Beijing? I'm sure the critics did, but they lost, and it's time to move on.
The real problem with this thinking is the arrogance and hypocrisy behind it. The US has only recently invaded another country for reasons that turned out to be false, and was opposed BY NEARLY THE ENTIRE WORLD for doing so. We also support, and have supported our own cast of unsavory types for reasons ranging from mere convenience to "geostrategic concerns." Does that make us ineligible to host the Olympics? And what do the Olympics even mean if the country that produces all of our cheap electronics and clothes, and has more nearly a fifth of the world's population can't host?
We've made the decision to recognize, conduct diplomacy, and trade with the PRC. Drawing the line at playing games with them doesn't make much sense. And if we've learned anything from the Iraq debacle, it's that yes, world opinion does count, and US power is not the end all to beat all of getting stuff done. China's population will be PISSED if we decide we're too good to come to their coming out party, and that will have long-term, far reaching consequences. The consequences might be worth it if there was a decent payoff - but ask yourself how many times the Chinese have caved to this type of threat. Would America?
James Fallows, who's blog I consistently enjoy and makes me actually consider shelling out to subscribe the The Atlantic, says all of the above better than I.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Wages in China
Sometimes when I go to restaurants and cafes frequented by expats I wonder about the logistics of running such a business, and how much they pay for labor and for rent. Well, after looking in the employment ads on www.thatsbj.com, I know. Here's what a pizza place (best in Beijing in my opinion) which is opening a new branch is offering:
(spelling errors are not mine)
8 Waiters/waitness(basic English required)
--1200/m-1500/m, depend on experience
2 Cooks(know how to cook Pizza)
--2000 first month, 2500 second, 3000 after probation.
2 small cook(knowledagble with salad and appetizer)
--1500/m first month, 2000 after probation.
2 dishwashers(age over 35)--800/m
1 cashier--1500/m
volunteer-- you will get free food and beer if you want help us out in the rush hours.
I was struck by how little these people are earning (our apartment costs 3100 per month, and our food budget is about 1000 per week, and we are at least somewhat frugal), but also by how well they compare to college grads salaries. A good job for a recent grad pays about 4000 per month, but I also know a girl making 2300, and another friend did an internship where she got 20 per day, although she probably did it mostly for the experience.
It's also notable how big the discrepancy is between the dishwashers and the pizza cooks - nearly four fold! Granted, knowing how to make decent pizza is a fairly rare skill in China, but I can't imagine it's that hard to teach. . .
In contrast, I make 150 RMB per hour of teaching at one job, and 200 for an hour and a half an another.
(spelling errors are not mine)
8 Waiters/waitness(basic English required)
--1200/m-1500/m, depend on experience
2 Cooks(know how to cook Pizza)
--2000 first month, 2500 second, 3000 after probation.
2 small cook(knowledagble with salad and appetizer)
--1500/m first month, 2000 after probation.
2 dishwashers(age over 35)--800/m
1 cashier--1500/m
volunteer-- you will get free food and beer if you want help us out in the rush hours.
I was struck by how little these people are earning (our apartment costs 3100 per month, and our food budget is about 1000 per week, and we are at least somewhat frugal), but also by how well they compare to college grads salaries. A good job for a recent grad pays about 4000 per month, but I also know a girl making 2300, and another friend did an internship where she got 20 per day, although she probably did it mostly for the experience.
It's also notable how big the discrepancy is between the dishwashers and the pizza cooks - nearly four fold! Granted, knowing how to make decent pizza is a fairly rare skill in China, but I can't imagine it's that hard to teach. . .
In contrast, I make 150 RMB per hour of teaching at one job, and 200 for an hour and a half an another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)