someone needs to edit Wikipedia's entry on Poverty in China so that it accurately describes how little China's überclasses care about their nation:
China's sustained growth fueled historically unprecedented poverty reduction. The World Bank uses a poverty line based on household real consumption (including consumption of own-produced crops and other goods), set at $1 per day measured at Purchasing Power Parity. In most low-income countries this amount is sufficient to guarantee each person about 2000 calories of nutrition per day, plus other basic necessities. In 2007, this line corresponds to about 900 RMB per year. Based on household surveys, the poverty rate in China in 1981 was 64% of the population. This rate declined to 10% in 2004, indicating that about 500 million people have climbed out of poverty during this period.[4] This poverty reduction has occurred in waves. The shift to the household responsibility system propelled a large increase in agricultural output, and poverty was cut in half over the short period from 1981 to 1987. From 1987 to 1993 poverty reduction stagnated, then resumed again. From 1996 to 2001 there was once more relatively little poverty reduction. Since China joined the WTO in 2001, however, poverty reduction resumed at a very rapid rate, and poverty was cut by a third in just three years.[5]
This poverty reduction has occurred in waves. The shift to the household responsibility system propelled a large increase in agricultural output, and poverty was cut in half over the short period from 1981 to 1987. From 1987 to 1993 poverty reduction stagnated, then resumed again. From 1996 to 2001 there was once more relatively little poverty reduction. Since China joined the WTO in 2001, however, poverty reduction resumed at a very rapid rate, and poverty was cut by a third in just three years.[5]
Poverty in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
China's growth has been so rapid that virtually every household has benefited significantly, fueling the steep drop in poverty. However, different people have benefited to very different extents, so that inequality has risen during the reform period. This is true for inequality in household income or consumption, as well as for inequality in important social outcomes such as health status or educational attainment. Concerning household consumption, the Gini measure of inequality increased from 0.31 at the beginning of reform to 0.45 in 2004. To some extent this rise in inequality is the natural result of the market forces that have generated the strong growth; but to some extent it is "artificial" in the sense that various government policies exacerbate the tendencies toward higher inequality, rather than mitigate them. Changes to some policies could halt or even reverse the increasing inequality.[6] (See List of countries by income equality.)
Absolute poverty down, Relative poverty up...
And anyway my point is not about caring about one own's nation, but caring about nations as limits where one is supposed to live and act. International careers, international education, international vacations, international friendships... are statistical sociological symptoms of the "überclass". Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
International careers, international education, international vacations, international friendships... are statistical sociological symptoms of the "überclass".
Sorry for my misunderstanding.
The "überclass" (as I think we are using the term here) may be pathological in some ways, but failing to 'care about nations as limits where one is supposed to live and act' surely is not one of them, right? (This question is separate from the question of to what degree the Chinese "überclass" has these traits.) The march of civilizations is a series of defenses that man has put up against the dread of pure existence.
I don't know about the Chinese uberclass, but in Vietnam it does seem that the children of apparatchiks routinely study abroad... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Son of two immigrants. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
But where is the hypocrisy in children of Chinese 'apparatchiks' studying abroad?
More generally, however, I'm afraid I cannot follow how this ties back to Chinese efforts to implement clean energy and energy efficiency policies. The march of civilizations is a series of defenses that man has put up against the dread of pure existence.
Shouldn't the apparatchiks ensuring you can get a decent education in China? En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
You mean you can't? The march of civilizations is a series of defenses that man has put up against the dread of pure existence.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
That's one possible explanation. It would imply that those parents believed Vietnamese universities to provide superior education than Chinese universities. That's also possible.
Another possibility is that those parents had some personal or professional connection to Vietnam and wanted their children to be exposed to that country. Another possibility is that they wanted their children to have an international university experience in whatever country they could. Another possibility is that the students themselves wanted to have an international university experience. Another possibility is that those students did not get accepted into a Chinese university that they (or their parents) deemed prestigious enough, and felt that going to school overseas would be a better option than going to a less prestigious school. (This last explanation was the case with a Beijing woman I know who is the daughter of a very powerful "apparatchik": she was not able to enter any of the three art schools she wanted to go to in China, so she went to study design in England.) The march of civilizations is a series of defenses that man has put up against the dread of pure existence.
Do you have any evidence you would like to offer that most Chinese "apparatchiks" whose children study outside of China send or allow their children to do so because they believe they can't get a decent education in China? Or are you satisfied to favor this particular explanation based (as far as I can tell) on pure speculation? Also, do you happen to have data on what percentage of Chinese "apparatchiks"' children study overseas? The march of civilizations is a series of defenses that man has put up against the dread of pure existence.
I guess I am. But I don't believe the Chinese are less hypocritical than others - they're human, too. And the phenomenon of people educated in public education (or even in charge of public education) who send their children to private education at home or abroad is too pervasive to ignore and, yes, it is hypocritical. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
