What happened?

It has been 6 months I've not posted. I have received few inquiries but not a lot.

My account was suspended and now restarted. Most likely some one did not like my posting stock recommendation in a separate blog under same account. All the blogs have been recovered except that one.

It will take a long while to post the jokes distributed to me. Many have been deleted.

Pitying the rich

It is often astounding what people find worth defending.

Not that facts ever move anyone away from their beliefs of choice, I've nevertheless looked into the wealth distribution percentages;

• Ron Paul has this: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/111232
• Wikipedia has this and a host of source references to check out if you're leery of what you get on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

An interesting line was this one: In 2003, the 1% with the highest salaries paid more than 34% of the nation's federal income tax; the 10% with the highest salaries paid nearly 66% of the total income tax; the top 25% paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper 50% accounted for nearly 97% of US income tax revenue, primarily because, as stated above, the bottom 40% had comparatively no wealth (less than 1%) to be taxed in the first place.^[19] The US has a progressive tax structure which taxes less for smaller incomes; correlating income taxation to wealth is misleading.

• The Wealth Divide http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
• CEO-to-worker pay imbalance grows

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/

• Executive Compensation vs. Workers http://financialservices.house.gov/ExecCompvsWorkers.html
• Open Left has an interesting little movie to illustrate the wealth divide. http://tinyurl.com/yaqh6gm

One could argue, I suppose, for economic natural selection – where those who make it do so because they are more fit and those who don't are low lifes deserving of their fate (i.e., the 40% who pathetically share 1% of the wealth). And it's not too painful to think that way if we simply close our eyes.

They aren't making much noise. They are, in fact, pretty close to invisible for those of us who have comparative wealth and comfort. But, if you want to see them, just pay attention.

Here's a way. Go to a grocery store – not to shop but to observe. Notice the person behind the Salvation Army bell doing his or her part for that group. Put a dollar in the bucket and they'll thank you and bless you for it – as though that dollar is anything to you. Now, go inside. Look at the faces of many of the customers. Notice them picking up an object and returning it to the shelf. Notice the tension or resignation in many of the faces. Look in the carts. Now, go stand behind the registers and casually watch as people check out. Listen too. You might get little clues such as, "Just swipe it as though it's a credit card." Good going, detective. You've just identified someone new to his food stamp card.

But, you'll see what you want to see, won't you? Like the fellow who saw a food kitchen with people standing outside it near a sign that advertised a job. What, he wondered, were they doing standing around with jobs available? He made up a story in his mind that reinforced his desire to see them as worthless individuals – and maybe he was right. Or, maybe they already had jobs but still needed a handout. Or maybe they had applied for several jobs and got nowhere because of their crummy interview skills or appearance. Or maybe they weren't recipients but volunteers taking a break. Or maybe they WERE bums. I don't know. I'll let the hard ass judge them however he needs to if he's to maintain the world view he finds comforting.. Me? I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and simply hope that they got fed if that's what they were there for. All I know is that I have no need to be in that line, so I have a helluva hard time playing hard ass with those who – for WHATEVER reason – do. Nobody chooses to fail. Many who fail do habitually make lousy choices. But, others have lousy karma. Either way, they don't wish it on themselves.

It's hopeless to write about this stuff. The audience falls into two camps – those who already agree and those who never will unless they personally fall hard. So it is that Dick Cheney, professional hard ass, is not so hard on gays as on so many others. Because his daughter is gay – and for no other reason – gay isn't something to bash for him. One wishes that he also had a son in the military. That might have changed recent history.

Most of us here are relatively wealthy. Not necessarily rich. But, I suspect that few if any of us are on food stamps or uninsured or under foreclosure. A few of us are probably quite wealthy (though, of course, not as wealthy as many others we know of). And most of us are pretty comfortable even if we aren't absolutely secure for the future.

Some of us, alas, respect wealth as though it is a measure. I've heard many praise Bill Gates even though his charitable endeavors don't come even close to affecting his ability to buy what he wants when he wants it for the rest of his life. No, he doesn't have to do it. Yes, it's great that he does (as opposed to, say, Donald Trump). But, I more admire the mother who called in to offer up $5 of her food stamps when she was listening to the stories of people in need during a money-for-food drive. That $5, had it been accepted. would have been not just a donation but a sacrifice. She didn't offer it because she had extra. She offered it because she was on the cusp of not getting by and, thereby, felt empathy for those who were NOT getting by. (This is no made up story. I was on the phone recording donations when she called in and happened to get my line. I refused the offer because she might well be risking the loss of the food stamps should it have come to light that she didn't use them as intended.) It depressed me to the point that I never volunteered again to work the phones.

I can neither understand nor readily stomach this defense of the rich -- as though taxing them is onerous to them. When I argued against torture during the Bush Administration, I argued alone. That wasn't worth joining in on for some of the same characters who now find it a moral imperative to protect the rights of the richest among us. (I argued against torture not because I give a damn about the twisted bastards that comprise the hate-filled extremists but because I don't trust any government to distinguish between true terrorists and mere suspects. And, in fact, we did torture and outsource yet more torture of some who proved innocent.) When I argue for the poor, I argue alone. But, the rich are finding defenders who haven't posted on anything else on this board. They get more sympathy in the topsy-turvy value system of some than the true victims of society.

With all due respect, there is little respect due to such misplaced concern. That concern, it seems obvious to me, needs to go to the 40% at the bottom of society who scrape by on no wealth at all.

It's just ugly.

Best,

Tom

How the wealth should be re-disbuted

With the reckless spending and bailouts, we'll see more taxes and many
generations have to pay for them.

1. Will be higher.
2. Inflation, a kind of invisible taxes.

2010 could be the last year for low tax rates for long term capital taxes for a
while.

Some rich folks may be forced to have their residence outside US to avoid taxes.
Some have done so already. We could be killing the geese that lay the golden
eggs.

Beside inheritance, most rich folks get their wealth by working hard and taking
chances. They should pay their fair share of taxes, nothing more and nothing
less. Most donate part of the wealth to charities like Gates and Buffett
(helping the poor in Africa). I prefer we do so voluntarily instead of letting
the government mis-allocating our wealth like going to wars.

Extremes of Two Nations

US and China are two countries of extremes to each other. It could be the difference in their cultures, their wealth, and/or changing of wealth. It would be best for both countries to move at least 10% away from their extremes.

Spending.
US. Like no tomorrow.
China. Saving for fear of begging in the street.

Health Care.
US. Encourages folks to be lazy, so they get free health care.
China. If you do not pay in yuan, you die.

Foreign countries.
US. Either my puppet or my enemy.
China. Non interference.

Environment.
US. Our pollution is not too high (translation: pollution per capita is).
China. My pollution per capita is not high (translation: total pollution is).

Human rights.
US. Killing for the name of liberty! or keeping our weapon suppliers rich.
China. Lifted 300 millions from poverty. Is this basic human right?

Military might.
US. New carrier with two nuclear generators.
China. 0 carrier.

Justice system.
US. Spent millions and let the guilty free.
China. One bullet for 99.99% guilty and warn millions.

Sports.
US. #1 in all sports. Get them at all costs.
China. Let's get 100 Walmart shoppers and have a race to see which nation is fitter.

Natural resources/farm land.
US. Can support double the current population.
China. Can support half the current population.

Politics.
US. Do everything for votes.
Capitalists act like communists by providing generous welfare.
China. If you do not listen, you disappear.
Communists act like capitalists by giving prime priority to business.

Education.
US. We've most Nobel's prize winners.
China. Our 6th graders can beat your college graduates in science and maths.

Model for youths.
US. If you give me one good model, I give you 10 bad models (like married politicians with outside affairs).
China. If you give me one bad model, I give you 10 good models.

Gun control.
US. Need guns for the wild, wild cities.
China. Thanks NRA for allowing us to sell them to your citizens.

View each other.
US. Job snatcher, banker.
China. Job provider, loaner.

My ridicule.
US. Nothing.
China. Me and my ridicule 'evaporate' from earth.

Future Car

China and Environment

Recently there have been some discussion on China’s rapid development, industrialization, increased pollution and destruction of environment such as deforestation.

China, as a developing country, can do so much. It has done its share so far. It is unfair to say China is the world polluter #1 or #2. You need to take out pollution due to production of goods for export. Then, you calculate pollution per capita. From this calculation, US is #1 and China is way, way down. China pollutes only 1/4 of US per capita basis.

* It is #1 or #2 in most renewable energy such as solar, hydro and wind energy.

* China is blessed with coal, but lacks oil resource. Coal generates heat via burning the carbon and it can never be cleaned even with the best technology from the west/US, which can improve less carbon monoxide and acid-rain-causing SO2.

* The better quality of coal is in the north east. Transporting coal from this area to urban cities adds pollution. It is more effective with barges.

* Grid to distribute energy in China is primitive at best. It needs a lot of technology from the west/US plus its own development to exploit and copy/enhance the technology. Made In China on grid technology is idealistic but still has a long way to go.

Hydro and nuclear generators when strategically located would cut down the grid information and transportation of coal for certain area.

A wind farm is idle due to it is not connected to the grid.

* Nuclear generation is very aggressive, but it is a small percentage of the total output of energy. All are foreign technology. China copied and developed the pebble nuclear technology which is promising for safety/cost but its capacity is very limited.

* The priority to highways (auto) and some air transportation should take a back seat to public transportation such as subways, trains, HSR…The recent cut in gas subsidy is a good measure.

* It has transformed a small scale of semi desert to livable land in the north west. The big impact will be from the diversion of water from south to north/west. This semi desert will turn to oasis easier than real desert. Will see the cost/benefit.

Nobel 'Peace' Prize

Gladly we accept Nobel Prize for Obama.
For nothing he did during his nomination.

Potentially he holds the key for peace -
By not pressing the button to destroy the world with our nuclear weapons,
Or not sending the nuclear carrier to enforce his kingdom,
Or for buying peace with money like no tomorrow.

Practically Deng saved a million from starving every year.
Not a nomination nod for this short guy.

Not destroying is more important than saving life.
Or Black is a better color than Yellow.

Wake up, you idiot committee.

-----------

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who:

“

during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.[1]

”

-----------

The Norwegians use 'Peace' Prize as a political tool to influence world affairs. Their yardstick is based on a rich country like Norway, so they oppose developing countries like China. The Prize should be given to where the credit is due. Period.

-----------

Why China will have more Nobel science winners.

(Some stat from Joe)

* Education. 6 million college grade a year. 1.5 million kids studying aboard. 10 times. US science graduates including science PhDs.

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

Why China will not have Nobel science winners soon.

* Education stressed on taking tests, not creative thinking (good and bad).

We do not have the space/guidance to do experiment when we're young. The most we did could be a simple radio. As a middle class, we never have to do any house work or use any machine/tool - the most I used is a screw driver once.

* Research facilities and faculties are just enhancing to the world standard.

* Effect of losing a generation of education due to Cultural Revolution is still with us, but hopefully disappears for ever.

Most top scientists are well-rounded and have good guidance from their family. Most are good in music, arts...

* Like Japan, pure research is too costly. Concentrate the effort on commercial products.

* Judging from the age of science recipients, it takes about 15 more years for China's scientists to be in the frontier stage of research.

----------

Interesting but arguable facts.

* Dali Lama is the only one born and educated in China to receive a Nobel prize if he is considered a Chinese citizen.

* The Chinese writer winner is a French citizen and his works are censored in China.

(The above two are most likely political as the committee wants to give prizes to the enemies of China.)

* The current Nobel winner is from Hong Kong. He is not educated for early education in China then and a Chinese citizen by takeover.

* The Chinese winners who are citizens of foreign countries should be counted as 50% Chinese at most - I estimate about 70% of science PhDs in US were born in foreign countries.

* The second generation of Chinese winners who were born in a foreign country should be counted as 25% Chinese - just for the family education from their Chinese parents.

My judgement on Mao

Celebration of 60th China.

This is my respond to a FM's post.

The following is my point of view of Mao as an overseas Chinese and I’m sure it will be quite different from Chinese in mainland.

* Interesting to compare Mao to Washington. I believe Washington had a easier time and he did not govern too long. His influence is far less than Mao to his citizens.

* ‘70 good and 30 bad’ is more political and would be sounded off from folks like Deng. The reverse (70% bad and 30% good) is more accurate for most historians I guess.

Mao is great in the beginning and poor in his governance and policy like purging the ‘rightist intellectuals’, Big Leap Forward (backward for me), Cultural Revolution (Counter-CR to me)…

It could be the Peter’s Principle – when some one becomes incompetent (governance in Mao’s case) when promoted from a position (founding China) s/he is competent.

He did raise the spirit of a nation (after hundreds of years of humiliation) while millions were starving to death.

My simple conclusion. Mao is a national hero with reservation and his time made him one. He has vision, talents… The folks surrounded him did not provide good guidance esp. in governance, or he did not want to listen to others’ opinions. Chou could have helped China more if he could influence Mao more. When Mao became semi God, he ignored that he would be judged harshly by history.

He has strengths and weaknesses of a human being. He should not get all the blame and glory. His advisors and his citizens should bear some of the blame.

All leaders should be judged by his benefits to his citizens and his nation's cultures. Based on this, I do not think Mao is a good leader even he is a national hero.

His era is a lesson for China, if not for the world.

Asians are coming

Some Statistics:

Current Population of China: ~1.3 billion

Users of Internet with Select Good & Bad Stuff Filtered Out (China): ~300 million

Population of United States: ~300 million (of this, ~220 million are 'white'; 4% are 'asian')

*Note: 'Chinese' outnumber 'white' americans 6-to-1

1 in 4 is a Nuclear 'Genius (East Asian, or something)

1 in 4 girls is Nuclear *Hot (Funny looking guys is the price to pay, but it's worth it, right?)

1 in 4 is an individual

"""Asian-Americans are the single largest ethnic group among UC's 173,000 undergraduates. In 2008, they accounted for 40 percent at UCLA and 43 percent at UC Berkeley — the two most selective campuses in the UC system — as well as 50 percent at UC San Diego and 54 percent at UC Irvine."""

{There is going to be some kind of discriminatory reverse affirmative action going on for the UC's}

""""Blacks and Latinos""" tend to our side,,, right?

U.S. Debt Owed to China: ~800 billion

"""In total, lenders from Japan and China held 47% of the foreign-owned debt"""

But what does this mean?

A Nation of No Losers

* A Nation of No Losers *

We do not let you be a loser!
Your mistakes will be rewarded handsomely.

When you bought a clunker that you should not have, we give you $4,500.
When you bought a mansion that you cannot afford, we're going to bail you out.
When you bought any inefficient appliance or anything, we'll pay you no matter how old they are.

When you lost your job, we extend your benefit.

When you do not have saving, we give you free health care.
When you have saving or a job, we take away your health care.

Teenagers, the more babies you have, the more benefits you have.
Drunk drivers, no one will prosecute you as the entire jury and even the judge are drunk.
Old ladies, your driver's license is also a license to kill.
Black kids, special pass to go to college and jobs.
Prisoners, you will get the flu shots first and free dental care.
Fatsos, do not worry as our up-coming drugs will melt all your fat while you sleep.


All athletes are rewarded with millions for taking drugs.
We voice loudly and disapprovingly on foreign athletes doing same.
It is an America invention!

When you cheated billions, you can retire in a resort-like 'prison'.
Also, the billions your wife hid is hers - no questions asked.

No other developed country lets their citizens own guns.
NRA and his puppet politicians will give you millions of funny 'reasons'.

When your company fails, we bail it out.
The executives are rewarded with bailout money for bringing down a company.

You die penniless, we give you $500.
You die with millions, we share your wealth.

The small catch.
We need you to re-elect us in 4 years.

The children cannot vote today, so let's pass our debts to them.
China does not have a voice here, so let's pass all the blames to them.

Even the entire world agree with us.
Our president is awarded the Nobel prize for doing nothing for peace, so why you need to work hard?

Are you a Chinese basher or a Chinese apologist?

Most likely your answer is neither. It is human nature to assume him/herself to be unbiased.

Both the bashers and apologists have been brain washed. They will not listen to a different point of view, let alone discuss with you with open minds.

Depending on the topic I could be guilty as charged.

I wrote a piece in comparing human rights between China and US. I have the highest approval rating from one forum. More than 100 folks read the long comment and voiced their approval.

The piece is here.

My piece on Tibet did not fare that well. Judge it for yourself.

There were more comments on my comment than the original article. Most are from Tibetan exiles I guess. So, their POVs are completely different from my Han’s POV. I understand and accept their disapproval.

We hope we’re all be able to understand each other’s POV even if it is completely different from yours. We do not want to limit our point of view like the frog under a well.

Our bias has been developed from our past experience. I have a good friend whose mother never buys Japanese products as she saw how the Japs shot all the men in her village and another friend who suffered from the communist’s prosecution.

Also, it seems all the EUers sleep together too and all Mainlanders have the own unified opinions. The overseas Chinese seem to speak my language.

Accepting other folks’ point of view is important to create less conflicts and it would lead to a more peaceful world.

Is China manipulating currency?

It is partly true that Chinese manipulate the currency. However, it has no effect on American export to China (explain later). As American culture (or all others too), it is easy to blame others than ourselves: it is nothing wrong with our government and our citizens (both are big spenders and fight the wars we cannot afford), but the ‘evil’ Chinese.

- Chinese currency and I think Hong Kong too were basically pegged with US’s, so it would not affect import/export with currency fluctuations. Now, it is pegged mainly with US and EU.

- Most countries would like to increase the value of its own currency. If you borrow from me with my country’s currency and it increases its value by 10%, you need to pay me 10% more with your own currency.

For the same scenario, I can buy your country’s assets (like land, factories…) 10% cheaper.

- The drawback. It discourages import from US to China in theory if Chinese currency is adjusted to the market.

It is not true as US and China are perfect trade partners. The majority of Chinese goods are of cheap, low-cost consumer products and US goods are of high-tech and agricultural products … In a sentence, they do not compete with each other in general.

China keeps the currency close to US, so it has to eat their profits by reducing jobs loss. The US consumers benefit by low cost consumer goods. It is not true if you argue the jobs would stay in US. With the US high salary, it would go to other developing countries if not go to China. So, it is a win-win situation for US.

- One way is go back to the gold standard that was removed by US. Basically your currency value is adjusted by the gold reserve in your central bank.