Will the Economic Crisis hit Asia Harder than the U.S.?

Posted by: Michael Mandel on December 28

The latest news out of Asia is not good. On December 26 the Japanese government announced that factory output fell by more than 8% in November, the biggest drop in 55 years. Toyota—now the world’s largest automaker— expects to report its first annual operating loss since World War II. And Chinese exports are down over the past year, the first year-over-year decline since 2001.

What’s happening is that the global economic crisis is moving into its third stage. The first stage hit finance and housing. In the second stage, the downturn spread to the real economy in the U.S.

Now, with consumers cutting back around the world, the downturn has jumped to the exporting countries in Asia. And it’s not just China and Japan—countries such as Taiwan and Thailand are seeing sharp plunges in merchandise exports as well.

What’s more, there may be no easy answer: Without the housing and credit bubble in the U.S., there may be a long-term glut of global manufacturing capacity. The major exporting countries in Asia can produce far more electronics, clothing, and cars than their own populations can consume, at least for now.

The key question is: What happens next? One possibility is that fiscal stimulus—in the U.S. and around the world—will boost demand and get consumers buying again. Then the Asian factories can get back to work.

Alternatively, the global manufacturing glut will turn out to be real and persistent, even with the stimulus. Prices for imported goods will fall and fall and fall, because there are simply too many factories around the world. After all, how many flat screen TVs do we really need?

For workers in the U.S. who still have a job, this drop in prices could be a bonanza. But as factories around the world shut down, the result will be devastation in manufacturing-dependent regions.

In the end, it may turn out that the worst effects of the global economic downturn will be felt in countries which are dependent on manufacturing. China, especially, will find out how much of its economic boom was real, and how much was credit-fueled. The answer may not be pretty.


TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

Reader Comments

CompEng

December 28, 2008 05:41 PM

There are a lot of odd lessons here. One is that it's not as good to be the global provider as I always thought it was.

Another is the absurdity (at least on the face of things) of economics in general. In China, there are millions and millions of intelligent, hard-working, and well-educated people. It appears that the majority of things made and sold in the world are made in China and can be bought in China under what are continually becoming closer to free market conditions. And yet employment and true shared prosperity remain a challenge in China, Asia, and the world in general. I'm continually struck by how difficult it is for everyone to find a worthwhile place in the system.

Kurt Dodgers

December 28, 2008 08:26 PM

China, Korea and in fact the entire WestPac is about to find out that Americans are not the frivolus free spenders they imagined. We are basically conservative with our money and when threatened....we just sit on it. We wait.

We are waiting.....

Brands such as Maytag, Pioneer, Panasonic we will trust. Others shall have to wait until we feel that we can throw away a $399.00 flat panel. Don't hold your breath.

Kurt

Ransir

December 28, 2008 08:38 PM

I could argue with you for many things.

But first, Taiwan is not a country. Correct this then we could discuss other things later.

Scott

December 28, 2008 10:33 PM

I think this would be very plausible. Manufacturing in general tends to be very procyclical. It makes sense that global manufacturing centers in East Asia will take a hit from this. It could take a long time before many manufacturers regain pricing power or work through their excess capacity.

Joe Cushing

December 29, 2008 01:21 AM

Ransir,

I think most people recognize Taiwan as a country. Just because China says its theirs, doesn't mean that it isn't one. It's actually The Republic of China (not the People's Republic. People still called the Soviet Union Russia when that wasn't its name. I don't see the big deal about referring to Taiwan as a country.

I look at it like this. If you would have to declare war in order to govern a land--it's not yours.

Hugo van Randwyck

December 29, 2008 10:16 AM

Some countries will do better than others. The Lebanese banks are in better shape. Why? The central bank looked at all these new 'instruments' and decided they were too complicated and also prevented their banks investing in overseas real estate. Good foresight - and/or just ensuring banks are there to help the economy.

TomS

December 29, 2008 10:30 AM

You summed up the whole problem with our entire world economy in one sentence:

"After all, how many flat screen TVs do we really need?"

Joseph T.

December 29, 2008 11:18 AM

Free trade cannot exist in the long run if countries are allowed to manipulate their currencies.

Trade rebalances naturally when currencies are freely floated. It causes countries not to become overly reliant on exports or imports, which is the root cause of our financial meltdown.

Lets hope that Obama cracks down on the countries that rig their currency to the dollar. If not, then free trade will die.

Kartik

December 29, 2008 02:32 PM

I agree. Taiwan IS a country of 25M people, that is a democracy in a way that the PRC is not.

Ransir is an off-topic pettifogger.

Lord

December 29, 2008 02:44 PM

The periphery usually suffers more than the center, so they will suffer along with commodity and resource providers until more can find the income to buy their products or they produce something new that consumers want more. Look for zero interest rates for quite a while since without growth there will be no demand for money.

baz

December 30, 2008 05:32 AM

China is not an experienced country in economic crisis management; this is the first time their economy has gone this far, they will rely on history as a guide more than numbers to solve their problems that is to maintain political unity in the country. I believe their reaction in 2009 would be to overload the mining, and agricultural sectors. As to the losses, the population will suck it in, since I do not see them so attached to social class supported by luxury spending (except for minorities in Hong Kong and few other cities).

However, there will be big social and economic problem in the GCC, Arab Gulf countries, where their culture is being replaced by prestige. Their economy is now being eaten up from the inside, and many companies and individuals refuse to declare losses, to the extent that will bring a crash down overnight, some months later. UAE will probably take the biggest hit, and we already see it thru the real estate empires building palm-shaped cities in the ocean and Kilometer high skyscrapers.

Mike Reardon

December 30, 2008 05:12 PM

If over this next year gas prices still remain low, the money that was going to Oil Companies and oil producing nations last year will go in large part to Wal-Mart, Target and out to developing nations. That transfer of purchasing power will helps Asia producers as much as it draws down the mid-east oil nations. Also a tax cut to the middle class consumers will also find a fair part going to retail and out to Asia. It’s a readjustment that can help restore the previous balance.

Matt S.

January 5, 2009 12:59 PM

Taiwan is a country. Consult a map. The people of taiwan sure think it is.

jeff

January 14, 2009 02:49 AM

THERE ARE plenty of people who should be held accountable for turning an ordinary recession that began a year ago into a global catastrophe.

Topping the list is former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan, who fed the bubble by keeping interest rates at rock-bottom levels, urging home buyers to take on adjustable-rate home loans and refusing to use the Fed's powers to oversee a mortgage industry rife with fraud.

Then there are the former Treasury Secretaries from the Clinton administration, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, who teamed up with Greenspan to block regulation of so-called derivatives--complex financial instruments based on underlying assets like mortgages.

Backing them up was former Sen. Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who, as chair of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed through legislation repealing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that restricted commercial banks from entering the high-stakes financial activities of investment banks.

Former President Bill Clinton, who signed Gramm's bill into law, bears responsibility as well.

This Clinton-era deregulation opened the way for operators like former Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Mozilo, whose company pushed sub-prime loans on people who qualified for better deals.

Countrywide paid mortgage brokers a higher commission on high-interest sub-prime mortgages, since those mortgages were more profitable to sell to Wall Street investment banks--like the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers, where CEO Dick Fuld pushed the company into the obscure but highly profitable market for collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which packaged together large numbers of prime and sub-prime loans as investments for Wall Street's biggest players.

And there's Robert Rubin--again. This time, as chair of Citigroup's executive committee, Rubin egged on executives as they plunged the bank ever deeper into the market for CDOs. "According to current and former colleagues, [Rubin] believed that Citigroup was falling behind rivals like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, and he pushed to bulk up the bank's high-growth fixed-income [bond] trading, including the CDO business," the New York Times reported.

Those assets turned toxic with the housing bust and resulting credit squeeze. Now, Citigroup is the latest financial institution to be bailed out by the Bush administration, with a rescue package that will put $45 billion of government money into Citigroup--and put taxpayers on the hook to insure $306 billion in bad assets.

But back at the start of the decade, with the table set by Clinton's economic policies, Wall Street could gorge itself on an ever-expanding financial menu, as the new Bush administration looked on approvingly.

Even when the financial crisis first broke out in the summer of 2007, Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson insisted that the problem would be "contained" in the sub-prime mortgage market. It was only after the failure of the investment bank Bear Stearns in March 2008 that Paulson and Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke lurched into action with an array of new lending programs and multibillion-dollar bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and, now, Citigroup.

According to Bloomberg news service, taxpayers are on the hook (so far) for an astonishing $7.7 trillion--a figure equivalent to more than half the total U.S. economic output, or gross domestic product, for 2007.

But despite this immense sum, the crisis has gotten worse--not least because free-market ideologues like Bush and Paulson delayed taking decisive action before carrying out its series of confused and contradictory "rescues."

So yes, the people who presided over this crisis should be held accountable. But the global scale of the crisis points to a far more fundamental problem--the crisis-prone nature of capitalism itself.

With even the most pro-capitalist analysts and commentators panicked about the prospect of a repeat of the Great Depression, it's important for those on the left to revisit the work of capitalism's first great scientific critic and revolutionary opponent--Karl Marx.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TO UNDERSTAND the dynamics of today's crisis, it's helpful to look briefly at what Marx's identified as contradictions at the core of the capitalist system.

Marx stressed that a key distinguishing feature of capitalism is its reliance on wage labor. Unlike previous societies, in which most production was carried out by slaves, peasants or small crafts producers, capitalist production relies on workers who have nothing but their labor power to sell to the boss.

Of course, independent producers and small farmers still exist. But the system as a whole is dominated by big capitalists, who own the factories, offices and other "means of production," to use Marx's term. Where the output of pre-capitalist societies was primarily geared to creating "use values"--items that met an immediate human need--capitalists produce for sale on the market, or for "exchange value."

Under capitalism, competing employers command the labor power of workers, who are "free" to work--or starve.

What gives capitalism its dynamism is that workers' labor adds value to the commodities they produce, by transforming raw materials into something that can be sold on the market. The value of a given commodity, Marx argued, is determined by the amount of labor time necessary to produce it. And in this process, Marx said, "surplus value" is created.

What is surplus value? Capitalists can pay workers wages that are sufficient (in boom times, anyway) to cover the costs of food, housing, raising children, etc., and still have a surplus left over when commodities are sold. Essentially, workers are paid for only part of their workday. This is true whether the boss appears to the workers as a "good" or "bad" one.

These basic relationships give capitalism both its dynamism and its propensity to crisis, Marx argued.

In order to compete with one another, rival capitalists are compelled to maximize the productivity of labor--that is, to get more commodities produced from the same expenditure on labor power. They can try to do so by forcing workers to work harder and longer--but the physical limits of (if not resistance by) workers and the length of the day restrict how far this can go.

Real breakthroughs in productivity can only come through the use of labor-saving technology that allows workers to produce the same commodity in less time. Thus, Marx described capitalism as constantly revolutionizing the means of production. Capitalists who invest in technological innovations win out over rivals who are unwilling or unable to do so.

For capitalists, Marx wrote, the motto is, "Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!...Therefore, save, save, i.e, reconvert the greatest possible portion of surplus value, or surplus product into capital! Accumulation for accumulation's sake, production for production's sake..."

This drive to technological change is the reason why industrial capitalism could start to transform the world in a few decades.

However, the rapid accumulation of capital created a boom-bust cycle. Investment would pour into industries that seemed to be the most profitable. As capitalist enterprises grew larger, they increasingly relied on credit to carry out the years-long investments needed to develop, say, a new steel mill. Since all these investments take place without any overall coordination, there's an inevitable disconnection between production and demand--and when the gap reaches a certain point, the boom turns into a bust.

In Volume III of Capital, Marx described the perverse nature of capitalist crisis this way:

The contradiction of the capitalist mode of production...lies precisely in its tendency towards an absolute development of the productive forces, which continually come into conflict with the specific conditions of production in which capital moves, and alone can move. There are not too many necessities of life produced, in proportion to the existing population. Quite the reverse. Too little is produced to decently and humanely satisfy the wants of the great mass.

This "crisis of overproduction" is the defining feature of a capitalist crisis, according to Marx. Factories are shuttered even as workers look for work. People go hungry while food sits unsold in warehouses or rots in the fields. Homes stand empty although millions lack an affordable place to live.

In 1880, Marx's collaborator Frederick Engels described capitalism's periodic crises in words that could have been written last week:

Commerce is at a standstill, the markets are glutted, products accumulate, as multitudinous as they are unsaleable, hard cash disappears, credit vanishes, factories are closed, the mass of the workers are in want of the means of subsistence, because they have produced too much of the means of subsistence; bankruptcy follows upon bankruptcy, execution upon execution.

The stagnation lasts for years; productive forces and products are wasted and destroyed wholesale, until the accumulated mass of commodities finally filter off, more or less depreciated in value, until production and exchange gradually begin to move again.

Little by little, the pace quickens. It becomes a trot. The industrial trot breaks into a canter, the canter in turn grows into the headlong gallop of a perfect steeplechase of industry, commercial credit and speculation, which finally, after breakneck leaps, ends where it began--in the ditch of a crisis. And so over and over again.

Beyond this destructive boom-slump cycle, capitalism had an even more fundamental tendency toward crisis, Marx argued.

Because capitalists are under constant pressure to invest in ever-greater amounts of machinery, there is a long-term tendency for the rate of profit to fall. The reason: because labor is the source of the surplus value that capitalists keep as profit, a rising proportion of machinery to workers creates a downward pressure on the rate of profit over the long run.

That, however, didn't mean that Marx expected capitalism to collapse of its own accord as profit rates dried up. He identified several countervailing influences--and pointed out that capitalist crises actually clear the way for a revival of growth by bankrupting unproductive capitalists and devaluing capital in general.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BY THE early 20th century, capital had become concentrated in ever-larger business entities and centralized into fewer ones. These monopolized companies, the forerunners of modern corporations, were increasingly intertwined in their home nation-states.

Military and economic competition between rival countries gave rise to a new, imperialist stage of capitalism and the slaughter of the First World War. Rather than rival capitalists trying to put one another out of business and take over their markets, competing imperial states sought to destroy the economic capacity of their rivals.

The war didn't overcome the underlying economic problems of the world system, however. The boom of the 1920s gave way to capitalism's biggest slump ever--the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The Great Depression confirmed Marxist crisis theory in all its essentials. It was only overcome through another imperialist slaughter--the Second World War. So as the war drew to a close, the allied powers led by the U.S. created a new, American-dominated world economic order (excluding the Eastern bloc controlled by the USSR).

Unlike the prewar era, financial services and capital flows were strictly regulated. But capitalism nevertheless boomed as never before, and the depression was seen as an aberration, the result of poor political leadership. Capitalism, according to its apologists, had overcome its contradictions.

The reality was different. As the late British Marxist writer Mike Kidron explained, the Cold War had given rise to a permanent arms economy that gave the system a constant stimulus. But because these enormously expensive nuclear weapons were never used, arms spending acted as a kind of safety valve for the system: It drained capital away from investment in new machinery that would have increased the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

By the mid-1970s, however, the picture had changed. Profit rates had fallen sharply across the advanced industrial countries as a revitalized Germany and Japan, the losers in the Second World War, were able to compete with the U.S. Efforts to stimulate the economy led to a combination of inflation and slow growth, known as "stagflation." Marx's theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall was validated once more.

The capitalist solution to this crisis was to go back to market fundamentals. Economists like Milton Friedman, for decades seen as a right-wing crank, were suddenly promoted as sages for preaching deregulation of business, privatization of government services and "flexible" labor policies.

Politicians like Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and Margaret Thatcher in Britain turned Friedman's ideas into policies by smashing unions, slashing government spending and turning finance capital loose. The Clinton administration shaved off some of the rough edges of these policies, but basically consolidated what is now known as "neoliberalism."

For U.S. capitalists, neoliberalism was a spectacular success. The deep recession in 1982 gave rise to a boom, and following the relatively mild (for capitalists) recession of 1991, U.S. GDP increased by 49 percent until the slump of 2001. Total non-agricultural employment grew by 22.5 percent in the same period. By the late 1990s, U.S. profit rates approached those of the late 1960s at the peak of the long boom.

Bill Clinton hailed this as the "miracle economy," and once again, capitalist ideologues proclaimed that capitalism had finally cured itself of the tendency to crisis.

The dot-com stock market bust of 2000 and the recession of 2001 threatened to undo that success. The number of corporate bankruptcies soared--with Enron and WorldCom among the highest-profile casualties. In response, Federal Reserve Chair Greenspan cut interest rates to effectively zero to stimulate the economy, repeating measures he had taken in the late 1990s when the East Asian financial crisis threatened to sweep the world.

For business, Greenspan's rock-bottom interest rates allowed them to clean up their balance sheets and begin investing again--but not in the U.S. Even as the economic expansion began in 2002, job growth remained miserable and wages flat--or worse. According to the Economic Policy Institute, real income for the median family fell by 1.1 percent between 2000 and 2006--and wages remained flat during the 2002-2007 expansion.

For the wealthy, however, the 2000s saw continued dramatic increases in income. Between 1989 and 2006, the wealthiest 10 percent got more than 90 percent of all income growth. The richest 1 percent saw their income increase 203.7 percent, while the wealthiest 0.1 percent saw an increase of 425 percent.

By contrast, if workers wanted to maintain, let alone improve, their standard of living, they had to take on debt. Personal debt increased by 159.1 percent since 1997, from about $5.5 trillion to $14.4 trillion. In that same period, the ratio of debt to disposable income increased from 93.4 percent to 139 percent.

By 2006, the average debt owed by every U.S. adult was about $52,000, compared to average yearly pay of less than $31,000 for non-supervisory production workers. Buying a house that would supposedly keep increasing in value seemed like a way out of this dilemma--and the likes of Angelo Mozilo and Robert Rubin engineered the financial system to take full advantage of working people.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WITH CONSUMER demand sustained by debt, the U.S. economy was able to maintain its role as the importer of last resort into the 2000s.

For China, the prospect of an endlessly expanding U.S. market was the basis for crash investment programs to build steel mills, airports, roads and factories of all sorts. China's industrial revolution, in turn, spurred demand for oil and other raw materials, particularly from Latin America. Japanese and German companies profited by selling machine tools and other goods to rapidly expanding Chinese capitalism. By early 2007, the world economy was growing at its fastest rate in 30 years.

Fueling this expansion was a vast extension of credit from both the $10 trillion traditional banking system and an unregulated shadow banking system of equal size.

But as the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank began to raise interest rates and the economy slowed, the dominoes of debt began to fall. What began in the U.S. sub-prime mortgage market became a global financial credit crunch, as capitalists were forced to reckon with the fact that assets of all types were overvalued.

Here, too, Marx's analysis of capitalism is validated. Credit, he argued, may postpone a capitalist crisis, but it cannot overcome the contradictions created by capitalism's drive toward production for its own sake. "The means--unconditional development of the productive forces of society--come continually into conflict with the limited purpose, the self-expansion of the existing capital," he wrote.

Thus, at some point, a crisis of "overproduction" is inevitable, as capitalists can no longer realize their profits through the sale of goods on the market. At that point, financial instruments of various sorts are depreciated, as are elements of fixed capital.

Next, Marx wrote, "[t]he chain of payment obligations due at specific dates is broken in a hundred places. The confusion is augmented by the attendant collapse of the credit system, which develops simultaneously with capital, and leads to violent and acute crises, to sudden and forcible depreciations, to the actual stagnation and disruption of the process of reproduction, and thus to a real falling off in reproduction."

Such periodic crises have not always been catastrophic for the capitalist system. Today, however, a prolonged slump seems inescapable--both because the U.S. can no longer drive the world economy through debt-financed consumption, and because the world financial system is staggering under the weight of bad debt.

The risk of such a long and deep recession has forced policymakers in the U.S. and Europe to toss free-market orthodoxy aside to try to find a way out. But as Marx showed, capitalism will inevitably generate crises over and over again.

CompEng

January 14, 2009 05:28 PM

Jeff,
Interesting, if a bit long. There are definitely some internal inconsistencies in the narrative about where capitalism is effective or self-defeating, however.

I think one way of summarizing the underlying observation is that an economy just doesn't work well when the concentration of capital is too high because the abstraction of "money" breaks down. If an investor has "all" the money, who can buy from them and how can they pay? How can an investor consume enough to sustain an economy? Our concepts of money and ownership are self-defeating under these conditions. It's like bringing Newtonian physics into the quantum or relativistic world. Capitalism doesn't work well for everyone unless everyone has capital.

Yet pure capitalism, over sufficient time, really is a winner-take-all-system. And so pure capitalism does follow boom and bust cycles, with the boom generally preceded by some redistributive measure.

Of course, the capability to be an effective critic does not imply the capability to tender an effective solution. I think most people agree Marx had some interesting observations, but also agree that his cure was worse than the disease.

jcage

February 27, 2009 08:25 PM


Mandel wrote
"In the end, it may turn out that the worst effects of the global economic downturn will be felt in countries which are dependent on manufacturing. China, especially, will find out how much of its economic boom was real, and how much was credit-fueled. The answer may not be pretty."

The same could be said of the USA economy! How much of the American economy is cheap credit fueled and how many of it is real! The answer might not be pretty! Do you agree with this assessment? The question, Mandel how much of China economy depend on export and how much of that export is to the USA? I asked this question and you simply demised and I guess that you just repeating what other "economists" are saying about China! Economist are subject to heard mentality that is why they all sound the same!

CompEng

February 28, 2009 12:37 AM

Jcage,
There's a lot of junk in the economy globally. You're right that America has its problems, although they're not irrecoverable. But China and India also have serious problems: it's the way of the world that no one is perfect. China and India are still going to be the ones to watch in the 21st. century.

But do you think you could tone down that confrontational nationalism a tad? We all respect China: it is western culture to criticize ourselves and others as a way of achieving a balanced perspective of the world. There is a subtle but important distinction between that kind of criticism and an attack. I have not seen Mike or any others setting out to slander China. It is not Mike's business to know the internals of China's economics that they do not even share publicly.

jcage

February 28, 2009 12:38 PM

To CompEng

Sorry if I come confrontational in my tone! If you have been reading the Western news, China is always one step from economic and political collapse! Every achievement that China that China does is met with Western derision! Too much to mentioned but last year during the Lasha riot, Western news were caught lying by using picture of Tibetan protest crack down from Nepal and even from India and passing them down as riot in Lashas! There are books talking about the collapse of China, China the next enemy, the coming war with China, global warming is China fault etc.. Are going to tell me that there is not anti-Chinese bias? People in China starting to get a really bad impression of the Western news and specially after last year Western news report on the Lashas! If Mandel does not know anything about China economy,then he should stop writing thing that he has not idea about rather than following the herd of economist!
Chinese export and import is public knowlege if you search the web. Chinese can not lies on what it export or import since it could be verified by other countries and companies. For example, if China announce that it bought 50 billions of Dollar in Natural resources, the the company like Rio Tinto, BHP could verify it!
Thank you for your time to read my response

CompEng

February 28, 2009 08:42 PM

Jcage,

I can't tell you there is no anti-Chinese bias in the west. What I can tell you is to be very careful how you group other people. "The West" isn't one person, it's billions. If you can find one country in the world that doesn't have some people who favor it, some people who hate, and a lot in between, it's an obscure country. China is far from obscure.

China is becoming very powerful: you should know that anyone who becomes powerful will be the object of intense scrutiny and criticism. How have people talked about America? It is no different, but I don't think China is used to the attention yet.

Mike can know and conjecture about plenty of things without feeling compelled to get the very specific information you're looking for. Economists do run in herds... just like professionals in most fields. But from the little I've heard, China reports a different import/export figure than many other agencies report from China, not because China is lying, but because the specifics of what they're looking for are different. It's a complicated world and there's a huge gray area between lying and telling the truth in the realm of world affairs.

jcage

February 28, 2009 10:41 PM

To CompEng

Maybe I was wrong to over-generalize on concerning the Western press and not all of the them has an anti-China bias! However, the bias is real and strong, this is something that I have been noticing on the media and the average Chinese that can read foreign news have seen this bias with racial underdone(Chinese people are robot, not feeling or emotion, not creativity, prone to revolt at first sign of trouble are dirty etc) beside of political underdone! This bias have been noticed by the Chinese people not only inside China but from around the world such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and many place more! Some Western writer just dismiss them that Chinese are just overly sensitive to "criticism". I agree that no one is above criticism but when the criticism are unfair, bias or just plain lies (The most obvious was 2008 Lashas riot reported as a pacific report despite filmed evidence of the killing of Chinese people and the filming of the incidence were done by European and American in Lashas at that time) and done for over a long period of time, it need to be challenged! Hitler said in the past if the lies are big enough and repeated long enough then it become "true" if enough people start believing it! Of course, some of the bias Western news will say that they are fair and impartial and because it is hard to find information on China so they feel free to do conjecture! That is a lazy way to reporting by just imaging or guessing and not doing any in depth report and I don't consider those as real reporter!!
Thank you for reading

Thank you for your interest. This blog is no longer active.

 

About

Michael Mandel, BW's award-winning chief economist, provides his unique perspective on the hot economic issues of the day. From globalization to the future of work to the ups and downs of the financial markets, Mandel-named 2006 economic journalist of the year by the World Leadership Forum-offers cutting edge analysis and commentary.

BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!