60 Comments

1. Charlie (Colorado):

Feh.

Jun 11, 2005 - 9:59 pm 2. uranari:

I’m with Yukio-san. Indeed, feh. Triple feh.

But there are always ways to get around the blocking of words. I’m told that’s how pig-Latin started way back in 77 A.D.

Hey, is Pajama’s Media going to have its own free online blog service?

Jun 11, 2005 - 10:12 pm 3. Syl:

WichitaBoy…great catch there. And thanks, Roger, for posting this. I think it’s extremely important for us to be aware of.

I had C-SPAN on in the background (wasn’t paying much attention) but there was a program on China and I remember hearing something about how far advanced the Chinese are with computer hardware but they lack the equivalent expertise in software…which India is good at.

Now we see Microsoft is helping the Chinese to bridge that gap…the last element of the whole that will place China far ahead of the West.

Jun 11, 2005 - 10:34 pm 4. ajf:

Roger,

Let me get this straight, Bill Gates is “pathetic,” “a moral weakling” and “a coward” because this Microsoft joint-venture has implemented filters for their hosted blogs’ titles? Nonsense.

This is simply one of the practical costs of doing business in China today. Every foreign business there has to consider the sensibilities of the government if they want to play.

Jun 11, 2005 - 11:08 pm 5. Kyda Sylvester:

Moral weakling? Don’t know–not sure I can draw conclusions of that nature from this.

I’m sitting here picturing myself a MS stockholder after Bill Gates announces that he’s pulling out of one of the world’s largest markets on principle. Although I may applaud the sentiment, I don’t think I look happy. After all, it won’t matter whose software ultimately is used, the rules will remain the same.

Seems to me we decided a long time ago to play the game the Chinese way and hope for market forces to impel change from within. If we were operating strictly on principle here, we’d be doing a whole lot less business with China.

Jun 11, 2005 - 11:40 pm 6. richard mcenroe:

And thus, Macintosh.

Jun 11, 2005 - 11:48 pm 7. David Thomson:

“MSN abides by the laws and regulations of each country in which it operates”

My imagination is getting the better of me. What would MSN have said in the late 1930s? How does this sound?:

“MSN abides by the laws and regulations of each country in which it operates. Who are we to disagree with Adolph Hitler and the German government?”

“I’m sitting here picturing myself a MS stockholder after Bill Gates announces that he’s pulling out of one of the world’s largest markets on principle.”

China needs Microsoft. If push came to shove, the Chinese would cave in.

Jun 12, 2005 - 12:03 am 8. AbbaGav:

At the risk of appearing to support the evil regime (Microsoft), they *might* not have anything to do with this. They have to support obscenity filters, and in localizing, I’m sure that the ability to tailor the “obscene” words list was an obvious goody to the Chinese. Microsoft is in a no-win situation here: must allow customers (Chinese govt. in this case) to filter obscene words in their language, but somehow this customizeable obscenity filter must not allow the customer to filter words like “democracy”? Unless we have knowledge that Microsoft engineers were in the Chinese offices typing in the offensive terms, I’m not sure how Microsoft is to blame. The alternative would be to blame them for millions of eight year olds typing in words like “f***” and such, in Portuguese, Chinese and every other language Microsoft doesn’t speak.

If it turns out the implementation is more sinister than this, I’m ready to join in protesting this Microsoft-Chinese axis of Evil. But I’m worried all the information isn’t in yet.

Jun 12, 2005 - 12:05 am 9. David Thomson:

ìBut I’m worried all the information isn’t in yet.î

Good point. Some of us may very well be jumping to an invalid conclusion. No company should normally be held responsible for the misuse of their product. We do indeed need further information.

Jun 12, 2005 - 12:41 am 10. Kyda Sylvester:

David, with due respect, that analogy doesn’t wash. For one thing, what makes you think American companies weren’t doing business with and in Germany in the 30’s?

My point is, China has been calling the tune for quite some time now and we’ve been more than happy to dance along (weren’t we instrumental in getting them into the WTO?). Censorship isn’t some new thing they’re just now trying on to see how it fits. Why is it Bill Gates’ job to suddenly make a stand? China didn’t grow horns yesterday.

Jun 12, 2005 - 1:01 am 11. WichitaBoy:

Kyda,

The question is, how far are you willing to go with this and where do you draw the line? Microsoft can ban the word “democracy” because China’s a big market and that’s important to your pocketbook. Ok. What if the Chinese government demands that American bloggers no longer be allowed to criticize China and Microsoft obliges by making all such comments disappear for anyone using Internet Explorer. Think they can’t do it? Ever hear of smart tags? What if Microsoft servers silently fail to forward any information they wish to suppress for their Chinese masters? It will probably still be good for your pocketbook. While many of us in our frustration with the MSM are placing our faith in the future on the blogosphere, we ignore at our peril the fact that Microsoft effectively owns much of the blogosphere because it owns the access points and it can at will control the flow of information therein.

Jun 12, 2005 - 2:25 am 12. Kyda Sylvester:

Where do you draw the line?

The Chinese have no right to self-determination, no free press, no freedom of expression, no freedom to worship, no freedom to travel at will, not even the freedom to reproduce as they would wish. And yet in 2004 the American consumer, you, me, all of us, saw fit to deliver 196 billion dollars into the hands of one of the most repressive regimes on the planet. The top US retailer expects to have inventory in China worth 18 billion dollars by the end of this year (if Walmart were a country, it would be China’s 8th largest trading partner). China’s economy is smokin’ and we’re doin’ the stokin’. How many of those tens of billions of dollars do you suppose wind up being used to further facilitate the government’s oppression of its citizens? How many wind up being used to develop weapons systems which one day could confront and threaten the United States? A reasonable person might ask, what the hell are we doing trading with China at all?

Some people draw the line in the market place when they return any product labeled “Made in China” to the shelf. Others draw the line at Bill Gates.

Microsoft’s stranglehold on the nuts and bolts of this particular medium is quite another issue. And I gotta admit, if Gates ever goes over the dark side, we got a real problem on our hands.

Jun 12, 2005 - 4:17 am 13. marc:

Don’t forget Google does the same thing.

Jun 12, 2005 - 5:28 am 14. JB:

Mark Steyn is more sanguine.

Jun 12, 2005 - 6:32 am 15. M. Simon:

I have read reports in the trade press (electronics) that after the bribes are paid and the government gets its cut, doing business in China is not profitable. Typically the Chinese do not pay M’soft for Windows. They bootleg copies.

You see when you do business with people who do not respect private property and the rule of law what do you get?

Losses.

Jun 12, 2005 - 6:44 am 16. Pat Curley:

The Steyn column is terrific. As for Microsoft, at some point a corporation has no conscience; this is one of the negatives about corporations that the Left has some semblance of a point about. The only way it can be given a conscience is if it suffers sufficient negative publicity that the profit from the bad corporate behavior is outweighed.

There are people who argue fairly convincingly that corporations have no business donating to charity; after all it’s not their money, it’s the shareholders’. By a similar token, you could argue that corporations should have no eye towards the internal practices of the country where it does business, (except for the obvious; I would assume Archer Daniels Midland has no interest in investing in Zimbabwe right now).

And where does it start and where does it end, and who decides which countries are wrong? Leftists for example, criticize endlessly Caterpillar and other companies for making the bulldozers that Israel uses to flatten houses hiding tunnels (and on occasion, slow-moving leftists).

Jun 12, 2005 - 7:34 am 17. Silicon valley Jim:

How pathetic is Bill Gates - what a moral weakling.

Bill Gates may, in fact, be pathetic and a moral weakling. Since he’s still chairman of Microsoft’s board and still owns perhaps 30% of its common stock, it’s likely that he had something to do with a deal this big. But, as a simple matter of fact, he is not CEO of Microsoft and has not been for several years. Steve Ballmer is.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/bod/default.mspx

Secondly, there’s probably considerable good that will come out of increased Microsoft presence, and an additional internet portal in China - and it wouldn’t surprise me if China’s bloggers find ways around the restricted characters, like substituting some non-restricted word or phrase (”bus to Beijing”) for democracy.

Jun 12, 2005 - 7:34 am 18. PeterUK:

Judging by Steyns article the Chinese seemed more enlightened than the West.

“China jails more journalists than any other country in the world.”

So that’s why they are powering ahead.

Jun 12, 2005 - 7:46 am 19. Curmudgeon:

Two very important points cannot be overstressed here: 1. Microsoft is hardly the only corporation rolling over for the Chicoms. The extent and level of corporate bootlicking, to the point of suffering financial losses and selling out democratic principles, is truly breathtaking.

2. If Microsoft’s behavior is craven, remember that it was administered an orchidectomy by none other than the US government, under Bill Clinton, followed by much ankle biting by our western “allies” in Europe. If Bill Gates or whoever is in charge just decided “the hell with it, let’s just do what it takes to stay in business” can we really blame him?

Jun 12, 2005 - 7:51 am 20. JK Ribera:

Blaming Bill Clinton seems a little retrograde. Bill Gates is at this point in history considerably more powerful and responsible for his own actions. Also, the power of Microsoft over the flow of information makes it more important than the normal coroporation, I think.

Jun 12, 2005 - 8:03 am 21. RBMN:

Fortunately, all languages are flexible enough to get around simple word bans. I suspect the Chinese are just as good, by now, as the former Soviets were at “reading between lines.” Even if individuals get only half a soapbox from Microsoft, they’re still better off than they were yesterday. No?

Jun 12, 2005 - 8:12 am 22. mrp:

According to this 2003 BusinessWeek article, Bill Gates did what was best for MS and his 30% stake. He certainly isn’t alone in the play for the PRC’s IT market.

And Microsoft is only a recent addition to the list of US corporate giants that have made significant deals with communist governments. Here is an example.

Jun 12, 2005 - 8:28 am 23. Terrye:

No doubt this is creepy, but I have a feeling that if Bill Gates refused to do this, someone else would. Which of course, does not make it ok.

Microsoft does not really need the bad press right now and once share holders know about this it will be interesting to see if individual investors have an effect on the decision.

I think we should remember that the majority of Chinese who live in rural areas do not have regular electricity and sanitation much less are they on line.

So there really is two Chinas, just like Steyn says. It seems to me that this might cause some internal conflict for them down the line.

I read something ages ago about the Chinese government saying that socialism is dead. It seems that to them the idea of communism is about autocratic control and not destribution of wealth.

For die hard Marxists this should be a conflict they can not resolve.

Unless of course they are all hypocrites.

Jun 12, 2005 - 8:36 am 24. Old Dad:

Whoa now. I’m not sure if I’m about to fall off of my high horse or climb on one.

Things might have changed since the last time I tried to set up a business in China (ca 2000).

At that time it was essential to have a Chines partner who was a member of the Communist Party. It was also required that the Communist Party get paid off the books. And so to play the game, you had to blink at the corruption.

On the other hand, western enterprise has helped to raise the standard of living for many many Chinese, and make a little dough at the same time. Do the ends justify the means? Sometimes.

Should a market leader pass on the world’s largest market because that market is controlled by bad guys? I don’t think so, even when the bad guys will make you play a little dirty. You can’t help clean things up if you’re not playing.

Let’s say that Bill Gates was a ferocious lib, and that China was controlled completely by James Dobson. What if Dr. Dobson wanted the eff word censored? Should he do it?

Jun 12, 2005 - 9:18 am 25. Rick Ballard:

If China recognized free speech as a right and this was an attempt to abridge that right I suppose Bill &c. could be justly criticized. The various “hate speech” abridgements enacted within the EU and Canada (and US uni’s) are a bit more problematic than a formalization of existing practice within China.

The Soros-McCain-Feingold Act is much more dangerous than all of those put together.

I’m having a bit of a problem coming up with a moral esemplar in the corporate world who would provide a fitting contrast to Bill Gates. Ross Perot? Surely there must be a shining example of a corporate chief who put principles before principal in a roughly similiar situation but my memory is failing me at the moment.

Jun 12, 2005 - 9:45 am 26. Half Sigma:

Microsoft is just trying to make money, which is what all corporations try to do.

It’s our GOVERNMENT which makes our foreign policy, and out government doens’t seem too concerned with China’s totalitarianism because it’s allowing U.S. companies to do huge amounts of business with them.

Jun 12, 2005 - 9:49 am 27. Half Sigma:

I blame my mouse for the double post above. Turning the mouse upside down, I see that it says “MADE IN CHINA.” How about that?

Every tech company has to suck up to China to be competitive.

Jun 12, 2005 - 9:54 am 28. Syl:

Well, whatever. There’s a time and a place for everything. It’s not like we’re communicating with the masses of farmers in China.

Speaking of which, have you all seen any of the popular Chinese peasant paintings? It’s a large industry with two ’schools’: Jinshan & Huxian. I get the feeling they round up people who are artistic and make them produce. I don’t really know.

Oh a link would be nice http://www.chinesefolkart.com/

The Steyn piece is great, as usual. I realize now that if the Euro’s predict something, it will turn out to be wrong. So, I too, will bet on India over China. Anyway I prefer Indian cuisine. It’s my favorite, in fact.

Jun 12, 2005 - 10:07 am 29. Anthony (Los Angeles):

Regarding Microsoft’s kowtowing to the fascist Mandarins in Beijing, Lenin said it best: “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

Jun 12, 2005 - 10:16 am 30. JM Hanes:

“I didn’t realize….”

Surely you jest! Since when has Microsoft ever been about democracy as opposed to — say — control? China is the ideal MS environment. What’s not to like about a centrally controlled, pro-business economy?

Don’t let Mr. Gates’ public good works obscure your understanding of the business practices that put him where he is. If you think intrusions on anyone’s private space or public rights would give him a moment’s pause, just look over the End User License Agreements which, if you’re reading this, you’ve been signing.

Jun 12, 2005 - 10:34 am 31. flenser:

There is not much that a banana republic like the US can do to affect Chinese policy, is there?

How do I know the US is a banana republic? I have it straight from the “Mick Jagger of political/economic punditry”, Paul Krugman.

I suspect the author intended this as a compliment, rather than as a suggestion that Krugman dropped one hit too many back in the sixties.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GE19Dj01.html

Jun 12, 2005 - 12:08 pm 32. johns:

It isn’t just MSN spaces. I was looking for some information on the Vietnam war recently when I ran across this Microsoft Encarta smear of the U.S. armed forces:

http://encarta.msn.com/text_761552642___33/Vietnam_War.html

On one hand, it’s a typical leftist anti-American hatchet job. On the other hand, this is Microsoft’s encyclopedia, which they are very actively pushing as a research tool for schoolchildren.

To excerpt …

The [U.S.] conscript army was largely composed of teenagers … those conscripted were mostly youths from the poorer section of American society. They did not have access to the exemptions that were available to their more privileged fellow citizens … Student deferments were kept by Nixon until 1971, however, so as not to alienate middle-class voters …

Microsoft’s encyclopedia article has nothing but warm admiration for the North Vietnamese army:

Both North and South Vietnam also conscripted troops. Revolutionary nationalist ideology was quite strong in the north, and the DRV was able to create an army with well-disciplined, highly motivated troops. It became the fourth-largest army in the world and one of the most experienced.

How about the U.S. and our allies?

Although equipped with high-tech weaponry that far exceeded the firepower available to its enemies, the ARVN was poorly led and failed most of the time to check its opponents’ actions. United States troops came to dislike and mistrust many ARVN units, accusing them of abandoning the battlefield. The ARVN also suffered from internal corruption. Numerous commanders would claim nonexistent troopers and then pocket the pay intended for those troopers; this practice made some units dangerously understaffed. Some ARVN soldiers were secretly working for the NLF, providing information that undermined the U.S. effort. At various times, battles verging on civil war broke out between troops within the ARVN.

Just in case we’ve forgotten how wonderful the North Vietnamese army is:

Internal disunity on this scale was never an issue among the North Vietnamese troops or the NLF guerrillas.

From here on it gets uglier and uglier.

… In Vietnam, Americans routinely referred to all Vietnamese, both friend and foe, as ‚Äúgooks.‚Äù This process of dehumanizing the Vietnamese led to many atrocities, including the massacre at My Lai, and it provoked profound misgivings among U.S. troops.

From this we move on to antiwar activities by soldiers and soldiers disobeying orders and murdering their officers. The article closes off with a paragraph about all the deserters, briefly touching on the cruel injustice inflicted on the deserters:

Most who went AWOL or deserted later returned or were found, and they received less-than-honorable discharges. Consequently, they received fewer veterans benefits and little, if any, postcombat rehabilitation.

And that’s it. That’s all Microsoft feels that you (or your children doing a research paper) need to know about our troops in Vietnam.

So what sort of credentials does it take to write a paper this slanted?

Contributed By:

Paul Atwood, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.

Research Associate, The William Joiner Center for the Study of War and Social Consequences, University of Massachusetts at Boston. Editor of Agent Orange: Medical, Scientific, Legal, Political and Psychological Issues.

And what sort of peer reviewer would find this article just fine and dandy? You just can’t make this stuff up:

Reviewed By:

Robert K. Brigham, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.

Vietnam War

Professor of History, Shirley Ecker Boskey Chair of International Relations, Vassar College. Author of “Why the South Won the American War in Vietnam” in Why the North Won the Vietnam War (2002), Argument Without End (1999), and Guerrilla Diplomacy (1998).

So I’m not surprised to find that Microsoft is no friend of freedom. This sort of anti-americanism doesn’t just happen by accident.

Jun 12, 2005 - 12:38 pm 33. gs:

Both sides of the discussion make thought-provoking points. (I originally typed ‘though-provoking’…that too.)

Granted, Microsoft is a business whose employees are supposed to increase the shareholders’ wealth. Granted, many American politicians would sell out an American corporation if it marginally improved their chances at the next election.

And yet, US IP legislation is justified on public-interest grounds. (My feeling is that IP is not a ‘natural’ right like physical property, but that the public interest can be served by social contracts creating IP. Unfortunately, some recent IP legislation is contrary to the public interest, basically because the legislative process is corrupt.) The MSN/China kind of thing may not play well during the IP industry’s next attempt to encroach further on the IP commons. Politicians do need a small fig leaf as they transact their virtue, and the MSN/China case potentially removes a sliver from that fig leaf.

Steyn contends that China’s authoritarian and corrupt Communism will prevent the full flowering of the free market, and he bets on India instead. Isn’t India encumbered by the caste system (not to mention problems with minorities including a large Moslem one)? I expect that the caste system is not as rigid as it once was, but I’d be surprised if it were no longer an impediment to level playing conditions in India.

Jun 12, 2005 - 1:04 pm 34. truepeers:

Well, if the choice is between a caste-ridden India with a large Moslem majority, and a China that is unwilling to provide the necessary freedoms to open up a well-integrated dometic market, I would bet on India in the long run being able to erode its caste system through a committment to politial and economic freedoms and keep the system growing. China just looks like a kid high or hormones about to hit a wall in his sportscar. Their banking and politial systems are a mystery; how can anyone invest there if not just to serve export markets? There are of course people who try. FOr example, a relative and his Italian firm are building household appliances like water heaters and washing machines in China and selling a lot to the Chinese. But I still see

problems with the domestic market ever maturing into anything like an advance nation’s economy, i.e. getting most everyone on board.

The present game is working very well for the top ten percent or so, and so they will try to stick to it. But the mass of people will want to consume more in future and everyone will increasingly need to consume good ideas to keep themselves productive. The present politicos will have to open up the system or hit the wall. BUt they are probably right in thinking that opening up will seriously undermine a financial and political house of cards. The future may not be China’s but it may still be a Chinese future… However, while they are incredibly open to outside ideas and will adapt and steal anything, they have yet to prove themselves agents of great innovation. That may be impossible for them, unless and until they become a more westernized people. Indians however, have a philosophical tradition much more open to theoretical science, etc., and they may be able to force innovation and market discipline on any recalcitrant minorities.

Jun 12, 2005 - 2:13 pm 35. Kyda Sylvester:

So there really is two Chinas, just like Steyn says. It seems to me that this might cause some internal conflict for them down the line. That and the prospect that there won’t be enough females to go around.

We tried to draw some lines in the sand vis a vis China last decade but they kept getting erased.

In the 1990’s many of us became agitated by the massive transfer of good old American know-how into the hands of the Chinese. The liberalization of defense trade with China under the Clinton administration had become very worrisome. With our technology the Chinese government vastly improved its weapons systems and the means to deliver them. When we protested, our president scolded us saying that such thinking was pre-end of history, that we were building bridges to the future and, besides, if we didn’t sell this technology to China, someone else surely would.

That, as far as I’m concerned, was a far more serious issue than whether Microsoft peddles software that can be programmed to filter out selected words. That was a matter of national security (and never forget the primary reason we fight the good fight today–not because all God’s chillen’ gotta be free, though we certainly believe they should, but because it is in our national security interests to do so).

Many in U.S., Canada View China as Threat

Jun 12, 2005 - 2:53 pm 36. Vexorg:

I am by no means an expert on the subject, but having done software testing on a number of Microsoft products (including localized versions) one of the prerequisites that must be taken care of before a product is shipped is what is known as a GPS (Geo-Political Sensitivity) check, There is a tool called PoliCheck which the binaries and source are run through that scans them for what are termed geopoltically sensitive terms (I haven’t really looked through the list, but most of it consists of general guidelines, with a few names of disputed territories that are specifically proscribed, with neutral terms used instead. I don’t know what the GPS guidelines are here, but my suspicion is that this is the source of what is occuring here. I have nowhere near the authority to make any official comment on this though. That would have to come from MS’s PR firm (contact info here:)

http://www.wagged.com/clients/clients/microsoft.asp

Jun 12, 2005 - 2:56 pm 37. shanti:

truepeers, did you mean “large Muslim minority“? since that is what India has - the world’s second largest Muslim population but in a minority with the majority Hindu population

Jun 12, 2005 - 3:00 pm 38. Rosemary:

Does this incluse MSN mail? If it does, I have to know so I can get a different server. PLEASE let me know. Thanks.

Jun 12, 2005 - 3:17 pm 39. Rosemary:

Dear AJF,

Do you remember Tienenmin Square? DO YOU??? Money is never everything. There are boycotts all over the world. Do you remember apartied??? We helped to free Mandela by refusing to do business with them. I hate doing business with the country that is next going to attack us. It is stupid to give them the money to buy the bullets for which they will use to kill us. It was once said that Americans would do just this. You must be one of them. I hope there will still be enough room in hell for all the people with good intentions that ended up killing more people than if they’d of just shut up and did nothing. We don’t need that type.

Sorry, Roger. I get upset when people compare freedom, death, guts and glory with lousy money. And I’m a capitalist!

Jun 12, 2005 - 3:25 pm 40. truepeers:

Shanti, yes, slip of the tongue, thanks for the correction.

Jun 12, 2005 - 3:34 pm 41. iheartblueballs:

just about every major company in america does business in china, and EVERY SINGLE ONE plays by the chinese rules. why is microsoft any exception?

where’s the outrage for the rest of the fortune 500, who fail to post flyers about freedom and democracy on the doors of their chinese headquarters or in the break rooms of their factories or retail outlets?

when your preznit sets the example by failing to back freedom and democracy in taiwan, why is bill gates held to a higher standard than the rest of corporate america or the current administration?

anyone outraged by this needs to open the ojos and realize that there’s a price to pay for doing business with communists, and not only george bush, but all of corporate america is gladly paying.

ALL OF THEM.

GLADLY.

Jun 12, 2005 - 3:46 pm 42. Rick Ballard:

Yeah, those sanctions that freed Mandela sure have brought SA a long way toward prosperity and equality. If you belong to the right tribe.

Precisely as the sanctions that turned the breadbasket of Africa that was Rhodesia into Zimababwe - the North Korean starvation gulag of Africa.

Aside from that, you made a great point, Rosemary.

Jun 12, 2005 - 3:55 pm 43. Old Dad:

Mr. Blue Balls,

You argue that most of corporate America is in bed with the Chicoms (I presume due to their black hearted greed and the evil urging or their preznit, Chimpy McBush-Hitler), yet by the end of your post it is not most but all of corporate America who are guilty. Does that iclude the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?

Just asking.

Jun 12, 2005 - 4:08 pm 44. ajf:

Rosemary,

Perhaps you should lay off the booze…

Jun 12, 2005 - 6:10 pm 45. richard mcenroe:

There is an old proverb about “The Socialiast Miracle:”

We will set up a society where all people work and share equally.

And then a miracle occurs.

And all the laziness, deception, hoarding, cheating and stealing that marks human, primate, mammalian and lower animal behavior ceases to exist because the map says so.

We will create a system that takes from each according to his ability, and gives to each according to his needs.

And then a miracle occurs.

And when the communal cow that nobody owns gets lost in the snow at 4:00 am everybody will take their fair share to go look for it, even the liars, the cheats, the bullies and the goldbrickers.

We will devise an economic system where no matter how hard or little you work, no matter how talented or energetic you are or are not, all people will receive the same, fair, and equal reward.

And then a miracle occurs.

And I will put in 40 hours of overtime a week, and deprive myself of time spent with friends and family while everyone else goes home to make sure that all 150 million of us live just a little bit better.

And our motto shall be all animals are created equal!

And then a miracle occurs.

And no longer will the ruthless, the brutal, and the savage intimidate the good, decent folk into thinking that some are more equal than others.

But is there another proverb we may not be hearing, “the miracle of the free market”ó ?

We will pump hundreds of billions of dollars of capital and infrastructure improvements into totalitarian states…

We will invest in and buy the products of companies directly controlled by these totalitarian governments and their cronies…

We will participate in the established structures of graft and corruption in these governments…

We will abandon all strictures on wages and benefits and decent treatment of the workers in these industries, indeed, we will transfer jobs into these into these industries from established industries of our own…

AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS

And these corrupt, totalitarian governments, now cash-rich with our cash and upgraded with our competitive technology, will turns these industries they own into a free market with equal economic opportunity and political freedom for all…

Jun 12, 2005 - 6:23 pm 46. tioedong:

And what is interesting is that China is helping Mugabe in Zimbabwe monitor the internet…to prevent news of the major impending famine and political oppression from getting out…

However, if they block WORDS, the answer is to change the word…

Maybe if we write “chicken soup” in articles every time they mention “freedom” it will work.

I propose a chinese site “Chicken soup for the soul” which will take all forbidden article mentioning freedom and use “search” to change the word “freedom” to “chicken soup”…

So an article saying “Bush proposes freedom and democracy” will be rewritten to say “Bush proposes CHicken soup and dumplings”….

Jun 12, 2005 - 8:06 pm 47. janis:

Maybe we’re being a little ethnocentric and hypocritical in our outrage over Chinese censorship. After all, “freedom” is an f-word for much of the world, and heck, many of our own Democrats can’t even say “democracy” without choking on it.

Freedom of the Internet should be protected as speech without borders. Too bad the UN is trying to do the opposite. Ironically, if totalitarian states and the UN succeed in controlling and censoring political speech in cyber space, then we’ll really be free, if “freedom is just another word for nothing else to lose”.

Jun 12, 2005 - 8:29 pm 48. C. Owen Johnson:

Roger,

First, I think you’re being a little hard on Bill. For one thing, he’s not Microsoft’s CEO anymore and for another, even if he was, he couldn’t be controlling what his Chinese customer’s do anymore than he controls what I type using his software. Keep in mind that MS-China is a joint venture, not a Redmond controlled operation. If the Chinese government wants to customize MS-China’s software to block “democracy” they will and no one can stop them. Sure, I suppose MS could protest or even pull out but to what end?

There is a larger point here, and that is that MS in China does vastly more to spread democracy by supplying the tools people use to communicate than banning the word “democracy” does to impede it. Further, Microsoft furthers China’s technological dependence on the US. Every year, China falls farther behind the US; becomes more dependant, less capable of threatening us, less able to challenge us in any meaningful way. They are being converted into something not far from a US client state, much the same way Russia has been. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your POV, but it is a fact.

In short, all the critical components of China’s economic engine are supplied by the US or by Europe, though to a lesser extent and still with US roots. The Chinese cannot reproduce or replace these components, despite earnest efforts going back decades, nor do they fully understand them. China blusters and threatens and becomes shrill — and internally worries strenuously about this [these facts have been freely, even vehemently acknowledged by the Leadership] — but can find no solution. They are faced with the choice between economic growth and technological self-sufficiency, which the leadership sees as security; but that is in fact no choice at all, because technological self-sufficiency means a return to Maoist rectitude and self-sacrifice, and the current leadership maintains its position solely by it ability to deliver economic growth and above all, consumer products. They are now hostage to their promises and when they show signs of beginning to fail in those promises, they will be replaced, perhaps violently. So they forge ahead out of fear of going back and buoy their spirits up with the delusion they can control the forces that are transforming them. Wittingly or not, we — that is MS and some other foreign companies — support them [or seem to] and feed the delusion [e.g. that banning words or trying to block a website will actually make a difference] because transforming China is safer course than breaking China’s economy [which would be a trivial exercise at this point] which could easily trigger a bloody national crisis. Thus MS — and other US IT companies operating in China — actually enhance our security and, in a odd way, that of China itself [though not that of the leadership].

Second: I would like to second Mark Steyn’s analysis of China. I could elaborate on his thesis at much greater length but not nearly so eloquently, so I will forebear except to say the cycles of Chinese history show no sign of being radically altered and we are likely to see in our lifetimes what has happened in China so many times before.

Jun 12, 2005 - 8:44 pm 49. WichitaBoy:

Richard,

Here’s how it actually works. True story. An acquaintance works for one of the well-known disk drive manufacturers. They had three factories, two in two countries in SE Asia and one in China. They realized that the their market share could not support all three factories being open so they decided to close one. After a thorough examination of all three factories they determined that the one in China was just breaking even while the other two were profitable. Therefore they decided to close the factory in China. China said no, or else lose all business with China from here on out. China is the Microsoft of companies. Give us everything we want or we’ll cut you off at the knees. And everybody’s already in too deep to pull out. The disk drive manufacturer decided to close one of the other factories.

Jun 12, 2005 - 8:47 pm 50. Rick Ballard:

C. Owen Johnson,

Hear, hear.

Communist China is a paper tiger and the stripes are beginning to fade before our eyes. That which is not illusional in nature is delusional in essence.

Jun 12, 2005 - 8:55 pm 51. Katherine:

C. Owen Johnson,

I KNEW that there must be a method behind the madness of the low quality of MS software: it will bring Chicoms to their knees!

Seriously, very insightful post.

Jun 12, 2005 - 9:23 pm 52. Rosemary:

Okay. I owe AJF an apology. I was upset because I have been reading about Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Darfur, Taiwan, Asia, and Columbia. I guess I had a little too much on my mind.

BTW, I gave up drinking August 19, 1987, so you don’t have to worry about my drinking habits!

I admit I do not know how to sacrifice the business done in China, but I know I Detest slavery. Even if it isn’t on our shores, it is wrong. It is evil.

When China does decide to use it’s nuclear weapons, I hope you will understand why I hate commies. I grew up that way for a reason. To stay alive. Thanks. Sorry AJF. Have a good day.

Jun 13, 2005 - 12:19 am 53. daniel:

USA is a free country but a totalitarian one. China’s propaganda system is not as sophisticated as US on marginalizing ideas (instead of suppressing them) and manipulating public opinions in one night. So please give China some time to evolve its propaganda system to the maturity level of US when its citizens “feel” they are in a democratic country and have “free” wills. Everybody who is talking about “genuine” freedom of expression is totally missing the point here. China is just less evolved and need some censorship at the moment.

Jun 13, 2005 - 1:31 am 54. richard mcenroe:

Wichita Boy ó So do you think China will be another Cuba writ large, with coprporations pouring in billions in cash and improvements only to see the government take it away? Or are the Chinese at least smarter than Castro’s bandidos…?

Jun 13, 2005 - 6:40 am 55. WichitaBoy:

Richard,

The Chinese are immensely smarter than Castro, but then they’re immensely smarter than practically everybody else and practically everybody is smarter than Castro. Although, truth be told, on the “if you’re so smart why ain’t you rich?” scale he’s pretty darn smart.

I don’t know how it’s all going to wash out. I certainly hope that the rosy scenario spelled out by C. Owen Johnson above comes to pass, but I’m very skeptical. I can assure you that the Chinese have plenty of new ideas of their own. I do know that the IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, for example, is chock full of articles written by Chinese guys at Chinese universities. From my previous life as a mathematician, I can assure you that the same thing is true within pure mathematics. The innovations are occurring in China now, not just in the US and Europe and Japan, and it’s not just derivative material. I have no idea what they’re publishing internally in Mandarin, but I presume it’s even more significant and impressive.

It’s true the Chicoms have a tiger by the tail. I don’t believe the China-breaking-apart scenario; that isn’t the way things have worked in China historically. Also, historically, oligarchies or monarchies have fared better than republics. The Chinese government is acting within the market like a monolith while our government is not even aware of the problem, and half of our population wants to shut down industry anyway (it’s so icky).

Then there’s the factor of Chinese nationals inside our technical infrastructure. Stroll down to your local university and observe how many faculty members in the technical subjects are Chinese nationals now. It’s not just in academia. I work for a defense contractor and we have a significant number of Chinese nationals working for us. Funny, huh. They’re cheap and hardworking and the CEO likes it. Helps his pocketbook. While American students are sitting around “deconstructing” Shakespeare and “studying” genders and ethnicities, hardworking Chinese students are inexorably taking over all the sophisticated technical positions in academia and industry. Maybe they will all be loyal to the United States in case of war.

Jun 13, 2005 - 9:44 am 56. C. Owen Johnson:

WichitaBoy raises some good points, and my comments above may read more broadly than intended, especially when examined from the perspective of Chinese individuals as opposed to Chinese institutions, but I will limit myself to a couple of further observations here, and address the rest elsewhere and later.

I haven?t had the pleasure of reading the IEEE Transactions for several years (and I was an SPIE guy anyway) , and I?m actually glad to hear that people at Chinese universities are publishing original innovative work ? 10, even 5 years ago, there was little of this; almost none in some technical areas. And yes, the Chinese have always been very good mathematicians, though in general it was held that they have been a cut or two below the Russian academics. And yes, individually, there are just as many excellent Chinese scientists and engineers as anywhere else, and they are certainly quite common inside our technical infrastructure, along with Indian nationals and professionals of many other nationalities.

But what is true of China now, in terms of their technical talent and academic achievement. was also true of Russia, and Russia is now technological backwater that, as of the late 90?s had completely given up even trying to compete with the US, and had settled for the status of a US client state of ever diminishing international relevance. My point is that having talented scientists and engineers, no matter how great their number, is not by itself worth very much. Russia didn?t fail because it?s scientists and engineers were incompetent or not innovative; it failed because Russia suffered from systemic and institutional problems that prevented their scientists and engineers from getting useful things done.

China suffers from the same systemic and institutional problems that Russia has, and in some cases to an even greater degree. For example, on a purely technical level, the Chinese have always had huge problems with the art of systems integration: this has been most evident in their computer networks, telecommunications, and military systems. Up until 2000, it was the case that however good the Chinese were with the various parts, getting them to work together was directed [or actually performed] for a foreign [usually US or Canadian] contractor, or the system didn?t work very well. Perhaps the Chinese have made great strides in the past 5 years in this regard, but the few things I?ve seen since I quit don?t suggest that to me.

On the completely other of the spectrum, it has been shown that technological success depends on having certain legal, political, social, and market conditions, none of which [except a bit of the market part] exist in China ? they are in fact mutually exclusive with China?s current legal, legal, political, and social conditions. A concern often raised is that the Chinese professionals trained and employed here will flock back to China and “leapfrog” China past us. This has in fact been tried ? and probably still is being tried ?and the Chinese government has offered bounties to encourage it. But when the US-trained Chinese take up the challenge, they fail because they do not have in China the vast supporting infrastructure, the necessary social and legal conditions that enabled them to succeed in the US. To the extent these professionals ? who no longer tend to be rusticated or shot as they were during the Cultural Revolution; I suppose that?s progress ? push for social, political, and legal reforms in an attempt to recreate the conditions necessary for them to succeed, this is good thing, because what they are pushing for is greater freedom, greater transparency and accountability, and meaningful laws. In this sense, I suspect that yes, they will remain “loyal” to the US.

To successfully compete with the US, China will have to adopt all of these, and figure out systems integration as well. That is what I meant by transformation. And if they do change all of these they will cease to be much of a threat to us; they will instead be a competitor in the sense Japan and Korea are and Germany was. I welcome this. We need all the competition we can get to maintain our position. Without competition, the US will actually become the lazy, stupid, corrupt, immature, indolent, spoiled society of whiny couch potatoes that some already see us as being. So I would personally welcome a transformed China into the ring to take a shot at the title. We as nation need it.

PS to WichitaBoy: As part of my former job I read the technical journals the Chinese publish internally in several fields and they were in general no where near the caliber of what they published in IEEE and other foreign periodicals; in many cases they were downright embarrassing, especially on topics like network integration and computer security. [You might recall the time that XinHua took an Onion article seriously ? there was stuff at that level. ] Articles for foreign publication were always screened and vetted at the highest levels of the Chinese technical hierarchy; they are not representative Chinese technical excellence as a whole. In fact, for the most part, publication of these articles was intended to inflate China?s technical reputation and enhance their national prestige ? their national face ? by conveying the sense that these were “typical” of Chinese achievements.

Jun 14, 2005 - 12:12 am 57. WK:

I’m sorry, but much of this dispute also centers on the economics of the situation. Americans support China to the tune of over $100 billion trade deficit to them each year. To owe that amount of money to their commerce each year is inexcusable, and Americans only have themselves to blame. I believe in fair trade, but not being played the fool. We empower China every day we play this game, and it will continue because frankly the American people are not educated to the issue to raise its priority. Trade disputes such as the textile industry show the weak hand Americans are playing as the trade debtor, rather than the trade creditor.

Our government expresses policy that we are concerned with Chinese military buildup and its view s on Taiwan, but we turn around and prop up their econmony with over $100 billion in trade surplus each year. I find this to be an absolute crock of s*it. We deserve what we get if we do not wake up to this imbalance.

Jun 15, 2005 - 12:31 am 58. LemonDrop:

Like it or not, Microsoft provides thousands of jobs. What about all that they donate!!!!! So much is bashed, but what about the good?

Big fish eat little fish. As it should be.

One day a bigger fish will come along…

Jun 15, 2005 - 7:09 am 59. Matt:

China’s Constitution explicitly promotes Democracy and Freedom of Speech — and calls for an investigation of any organization or enterprise that violates China’s Constitution. So censoring words such as “freedom” and “democracy” in China is wrong both legally and morally. Here are some excerpts from China’s constitution — with a URL to the full constitution provided below:

” Article 35. Freedom of speech, press, assembly

Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration. ”

” Article 3. Democracy

The state organs of the People’s Republic of China apply the principle of democratic centralism.

The National People’s Congress and the local people’s congresses at various levels are constituted through democratic elections. They are responsible to the people and subject to their supervision.

”

“Article 5. Constitutional supremacy

…All state organs, the armed forces, all political parties and public organizations and all enterprises and institutions must abide by the Constitution and the law. All acts in violation of the Constitution and the law must be investigated.

”

A copy of China’s constitution can be found at: http://www.usconstitution.net/china.html

Jun 16, 2005 - 6:37 pm 60. bcarso:

If we consider how the Soviets failed to compete in areas like semiconductor manufacturing, the comments with regard to China’s difficulties can be better appreciated.

When central planners met to determine resource allocation they were hard-pressed to anticipate the needs of some industry, unless things were simply the same as ever, i.e., no innovation. Compare to the US, where some entrepreneur could see a need for some complex equipment and form a company to design and manufacture it.

Despite the inevitable hurdles from federal, state, and local governments, and the uncertainties of success, the environment was still sufficiently permissive to make many ventures feasible and sometimes very successful.

Without this aspect of economic freedom the efforts of dictatorships to emulate and encourage innovation will always fall short.

Jun 26, 2005 - 1:59 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: