Not long ago, I freely expressed my thoughts on the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize result here. Something I left without any further discussion was the unknown impacts of cultural differences on freedom of speech revolution. It is way too deep to discuss.
However, it is not way too theoretical to observe in reality. Germany, a country widely accepted by most "righteous" nations in the world, refuses the possibility of coexistence, a theory widely accepted by most "righteous" nations in the world.
This fact doesn't give us any theory or law, but it says it is absolutely wrong to think one ideal can work in all cultures, in all geographic locations, and in all people.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Android, a tradeoff between open and secure
Android has been developers' heaven due to its openness. It is so easy to use your imagination to develop something without worrying about whether somebody else has already built it on Android. An app with the most common features (notepads, I wonder why ;) can be published to the market as the developer wishes. Obviously, this also creates a problem, a malicious / offensive app can be available for download as well.
Not surprisingly, Google has prepared for that, and we have already heard about Google's ability to remove an app from your phone remotely, and all you have is a nice little notification to tell you it has happened. Google will also *try* to refund the money as well, not too shabby.
As I was reading about how Google does it, I came across two blog posts by Jon Oberheide. One investigates how Google removes it, and the other one describes how potentially unsafe it is.
If you really feel geeky today, you can find these two posts here and here
Essentially, if you dial *#*#8255#*#* from your Android phone, you will open GTalkService monitor. You phone keeps a connection with Google's GTalkService, and "heartbeats" are periodically sent to this service's server. In addition to many important information, you can check out the entree at the end of the monitor log. If you installed or removed apps from your phone in the past 12 hours, you can see INSTALL_ASSET / REMOVE_ASSET entries at the end. It shows how many apps are installed on / removed from your phone in the past 12 hours. These two types of messages correspond to some functions implemented in vending APK. Google can use the connection established by GTalkService to push down either INSTALL or REMOVE intent to *organize* your app collection.
Wait, if Google can do it, anybody who can forge an intent message also can do it. Apparently Google uses SSL to ensure the secure communication. However, we have long known SSL is not the foul-proof security solution (won't it be nice if it is?), and as it turns out, Google is not using their private key to digitally sign each intent message. Therefore, theoretically, if the SSL channel is compromised, all the Android phones can be unwillingly installed with malicious attackers' apps.
Granted, signing each intent message using the private key is costly, and Google probably has a very good way to keep its SSL channels safe and sound. Still, only benefits from SSL for its confidentiality not integrity is quite an irresponsible thing.
God Bless Google for the sake of every Android user out there.
Not surprisingly, Google has prepared for that, and we have already heard about Google's ability to remove an app from your phone remotely, and all you have is a nice little notification to tell you it has happened. Google will also *try* to refund the money as well, not too shabby.
As I was reading about how Google does it, I came across two blog posts by Jon Oberheide. One investigates how Google removes it, and the other one describes how potentially unsafe it is.
If you really feel geeky today, you can find these two posts here and here
Essentially, if you dial *#*#8255#*#* from your Android phone, you will open GTalkService monitor. You phone keeps a connection with Google's GTalkService, and "heartbeats" are periodically sent to this service's server. In addition to many important information, you can check out the entree at the end of the monitor log. If you installed or removed apps from your phone in the past 12 hours, you can see INSTALL_ASSET / REMOVE_ASSET entries at the end. It shows how many apps are installed on / removed from your phone in the past 12 hours. These two types of messages correspond to some functions implemented in vending APK. Google can use the connection established by GTalkService to push down either INSTALL or REMOVE intent to *organize* your app collection.
Wait, if Google can do it, anybody who can forge an intent message also can do it. Apparently Google uses SSL to ensure the secure communication. However, we have long known SSL is not the foul-proof security solution (won't it be nice if it is?), and as it turns out, Google is not using their private key to digitally sign each intent message. Therefore, theoretically, if the SSL channel is compromised, all the Android phones can be unwillingly installed with malicious attackers' apps.
Granted, signing each intent message using the private key is costly, and Google probably has a very good way to keep its SSL channels safe and sound. Still, only benefits from SSL for its confidentiality not integrity is quite an irresponsible thing.
God Bless Google for the sake of every Android user out there.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Thoughts after Nobel Peace Prize 2010
Well, well, well. I thought I would never come back to this topic again after arguing with my WASP friends in the first two years of college, but here I am, sharing my little thought on China' human right issue.
I am a pro-U.S., pro-freedom person myself, and that is why I am here working in the U.S. and going after the so-called "American Dream". I HATE the dictatorship taking place in my motherland, ranging from the government, companies, to virtually anywhere in between. It is absolutely not a place for innovation, not a place for hoping rewarded after working hard, and not a place to know the truth.
It is why the whole world, led by the U.S., urges the system to change. It is why a Chinese criminal won the Nobel Peace Prize this year. The inevitable consequences of the Nobel Peace Prize is to encourage more and more people to fight for human rights, and that is what this organization wants to achieve. Good intention, but radically, it is to encourage Chinese people to start revolution, either a peaceful one or violent one, to start things over again, because let's face it, the current ruling party in China is too stable and too powerful to be willing to give away that power.
What does this mean? This means at least a whole generation is sacrificed for something we don't know whether we want. People say we are brain washed and then stop listening to us right here, or have that pre-assumption in their mind and ignore us with a smile. Well, what if I say, hey, we need to stop driving cars, eating steak, wearing cotton clothes, cutting power cores for about 10 - 20 years, and start over with cleaner energy and less aggressive demand, so our kids or grandchildren will have a MUCH better life.
Would anyone listen to me? No. Why? People are happy with where they are, and although everyone consciously knows what is better, hardly anybody is going to sacrifice for the possible better outcome for the kids. Civil rights succeeded, because the way most under-privileged people live at that time was no better than dying for a better future. Even that, not many people stood up for their rights. It is always those countable few who we commemorate for. RIP, Dr. MLK Jr., and Ms. Rosa Parks. Even after all those changes, can anybody say the U.S. is a country with racial equality? Can anyone say they didn't see any side effects of these changes? Can anyone say no other innocent people's benefits are sacrificed as a result? We are already the generation, which is supposed to see only the benefits. We are not listening to the generation, which sacrificed their own well being for all these anymore.
Back to China, people are way more satisfied and happy with their lives than those under-privileged people before the Civil Rights Movement, regardless if they live in urban, suburban or rural regions. Would multi-party system bring less political games and more specific beneficial policies? Would more human rights make them financially better off and happy in 5 to 10 years? Would the path to human rights take less than 5 to 10 years? If the answer is "no" or "maybe" for ANY question, it is not good enough for people to change.
What people know is, currently the economy is booming, lives are getting better, hopes are full and goals are clear. Life is good, isn't it? Granted, without enough human rights, more specifically, freedom of speech, (let's face it, every Chinese still has the right to live, has the right to own private property and has the right to feel safe and sound, among others), people will become the victim of political trades unnoticed. For example, people will be forced out of their home to make way for new development, although they are usually financially compensated for the "inconvenience", and people may die in an illegal coal mine, and all these may not see the news. Bad guys may not be punished or blamed. Wait, Ponzi Scheme does the same thing to people, right? Sure, people like Madoff get life sentence, and become celebrities in prison. Do victims get back what they lost? No.Will there be no more Ponzi Schemes in the future? No.
Eventually, people become victims for various reasons (I am not judging anything here, sorry), but the difference is, some of them get sympathy because their stories see the news, and some don't. Bad things will keep happening, and people lives will keep being irreversibly destroyed. Possibly only 1% people will be victimized in a "free" country, while 5% people will be victimized in a not so free country (numbers are purely fictional). That means nothing to regular people. What would? Between 99.99% and 100%, or between 0% and 0.01%.
By the way, I haven't said anything about culture yet. European countries and the U.S. are using different systems, and even among European countries, the system is different. Nuf' said. It is too difficult to say which one is the most suitable for China, or something completely unheard of, or just staying the same. This is too big and deep a topic and I am not going to discuss it here.
So, no guarantee for less political game more beneficial / encouraging policies, no guarantee for more happiness / financial well-being, no guarantee for not being irreversibly victimized, no guarantee for the length of revolution, and only guarantee for chaos. How is that better than keeping the current situation, where lives are *usually* full of hope, clear goal and most importantly, satisfaction?
I am not trying to agree with self-claimed artists, hippies, and other who can look through practicality and consider spiritual / ideological victory more important than anything else. Are you?
Surely, I can't say any of these in China if the government doesn't want me to. However, I won't need to, because most people share a similar view, so I don't need to spend all these time on arguing with friends for our ideological differences, but rather, we can spend time together on pirating DVDs for an enormous profit.
Nobel Peace Prize? You are just trying to encourage people to subvert when they don't necessarily want to.
I am a pro-U.S., pro-freedom person myself, and that is why I am here working in the U.S. and going after the so-called "American Dream". I HATE the dictatorship taking place in my motherland, ranging from the government, companies, to virtually anywhere in between. It is absolutely not a place for innovation, not a place for hoping rewarded after working hard, and not a place to know the truth.
It is why the whole world, led by the U.S., urges the system to change. It is why a Chinese criminal won the Nobel Peace Prize this year. The inevitable consequences of the Nobel Peace Prize is to encourage more and more people to fight for human rights, and that is what this organization wants to achieve. Good intention, but radically, it is to encourage Chinese people to start revolution, either a peaceful one or violent one, to start things over again, because let's face it, the current ruling party in China is too stable and too powerful to be willing to give away that power.
What does this mean? This means at least a whole generation is sacrificed for something we don't know whether we want. People say we are brain washed and then stop listening to us right here, or have that pre-assumption in their mind and ignore us with a smile. Well, what if I say, hey, we need to stop driving cars, eating steak, wearing cotton clothes, cutting power cores for about 10 - 20 years, and start over with cleaner energy and less aggressive demand, so our kids or grandchildren will have a MUCH better life.
Would anyone listen to me? No. Why? People are happy with where they are, and although everyone consciously knows what is better, hardly anybody is going to sacrifice for the possible better outcome for the kids. Civil rights succeeded, because the way most under-privileged people live at that time was no better than dying for a better future. Even that, not many people stood up for their rights. It is always those countable few who we commemorate for. RIP, Dr. MLK Jr., and Ms. Rosa Parks. Even after all those changes, can anybody say the U.S. is a country with racial equality? Can anyone say they didn't see any side effects of these changes? Can anyone say no other innocent people's benefits are sacrificed as a result? We are already the generation, which is supposed to see only the benefits. We are not listening to the generation, which sacrificed their own well being for all these anymore.
Back to China, people are way more satisfied and happy with their lives than those under-privileged people before the Civil Rights Movement, regardless if they live in urban, suburban or rural regions. Would multi-party system bring less political games and more specific beneficial policies? Would more human rights make them financially better off and happy in 5 to 10 years? Would the path to human rights take less than 5 to 10 years? If the answer is "no" or "maybe" for ANY question, it is not good enough for people to change.
What people know is, currently the economy is booming, lives are getting better, hopes are full and goals are clear. Life is good, isn't it? Granted, without enough human rights, more specifically, freedom of speech, (let's face it, every Chinese still has the right to live, has the right to own private property and has the right to feel safe and sound, among others), people will become the victim of political trades unnoticed. For example, people will be forced out of their home to make way for new development, although they are usually financially compensated for the "inconvenience", and people may die in an illegal coal mine, and all these may not see the news. Bad guys may not be punished or blamed. Wait, Ponzi Scheme does the same thing to people, right? Sure, people like Madoff get life sentence, and become celebrities in prison. Do victims get back what they lost? No.Will there be no more Ponzi Schemes in the future? No.
Eventually, people become victims for various reasons (I am not judging anything here, sorry), but the difference is, some of them get sympathy because their stories see the news, and some don't. Bad things will keep happening, and people lives will keep being irreversibly destroyed. Possibly only 1% people will be victimized in a "free" country, while 5% people will be victimized in a not so free country (numbers are purely fictional). That means nothing to regular people. What would? Between 99.99% and 100%, or between 0% and 0.01%.
By the way, I haven't said anything about culture yet. European countries and the U.S. are using different systems, and even among European countries, the system is different. Nuf' said. It is too difficult to say which one is the most suitable for China, or something completely unheard of, or just staying the same. This is too big and deep a topic and I am not going to discuss it here.
So, no guarantee for less political game more beneficial / encouraging policies, no guarantee for more happiness / financial well-being, no guarantee for not being irreversibly victimized, no guarantee for the length of revolution, and only guarantee for chaos. How is that better than keeping the current situation, where lives are *usually* full of hope, clear goal and most importantly, satisfaction?
I am not trying to agree with self-claimed artists, hippies, and other who can look through practicality and consider spiritual / ideological victory more important than anything else. Are you?
Surely, I can't say any of these in China if the government doesn't want me to. However, I won't need to, because most people share a similar view, so I don't need to spend all these time on arguing with friends for our ideological differences, but rather, we can spend time together on pirating DVDs for an enormous profit.
Nobel Peace Prize? You are just trying to encourage people to subvert when they don't necessarily want to.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
More on luck
Successful people tell you it's luck, because they are 1) being polite and/or 2) trying to convince you your efforts will be a lost cause. Failures tell you it's luck, simply because of self-esteem. Try your best and be the best you can.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Feeling Unlucky? Attitude is everything
Finally somebody else agrees with my opinion on luck. As a self-declared atheist, I should be the last one to be blessed, but I feel blessed all the time. Yes, I do pray when I feel powerless and have no control over a thing, although I don't know to whom I pray, but I never stop preparing for backup plans or simply undertaking the worst scenario.
Enough about me, read the article, and you will know what I believe, and what I think happened to me. I just want to add that grasp every *could-be* opportunity, although it may just seem like nothing promising or useful at the beginning. As long as you can take the worst that could happen, try it out, because you never know which one could eventually becomes your big break
Enough about me, read the article, and you will know what I believe, and what I think happened to me. I just want to add that grasp every *could-be* opportunity, although it may just seem like nothing promising or useful at the beginning. As long as you can take the worst that could happen, try it out, because you never know which one could eventually becomes your big break
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Google Instant Search - Simplicity Guaranteed
Today, Google finally brings out the highly anticipated big gun, instant search. This morning I was playing with the color changing doodle and read about how people think Google is making it clear that real time searching is the *future* direction. Not long after lunch when I wanted to know more about "Minnie the Moocher" (great song), I found out the future is here. Man, Google is fast...
Tried a few things here and there. Quite impressive, although I am still adjusting to the ever changing page, a little overwhelming. As I am trying to figure out the advantage of doing so, I can't help but recall a conversation I had with my ex-coworkers/friends when this came out. We had a fierce argument on whether the Google Search button and I'm Feeling Lucky button should stay there.
Besides the possibility of being overly minimalism, the point gets the most attention is whether there are relatively significant amount of people don't know you can hit Enter/Return to submit a form, in this case, to start a search. Finally, this argument is officially dead, and now let's get rid of the "excessive" buttons! (unless you turn instant search off, of course. By the way, I do love how easy it is to change settings for instant search and SafeSearch now)
Without a doubt, instant search is by far the best showcase for AJAX. More subtly, it makes "uncertain search" (much) easier. As a typical Gen Y'er, I have an incredibly short attention span, and am very purpose/result-driven. I hardly go to the second page of Google search results, and always want to find the best keywords combination and order so I can fill my need with as few search as possible. That's why when the suggestion came out, I wasn't sure whether I had been drinking or not.
Now? When I type in two misspelled words, I don't need to select one and hit Enter, and then type those two words (possibly still misspelled) again and hit Enter again. If I want to compare what I see and what I saw from last search results, I don't need to choose the first suggestion again. With a move of the arrow keys, I can keep changing between results returned by each suggestion, and instead of glancing through the whole first page for what I want before I change query, I can just look at the first three or five results for each search to convince myself which suggestion is more useful, and at which I should take a better look.
More efficient? Possibly. Reduce my attention span even further? Definitely.
Thank you Google. Where is the Google TV, by the way?
Tried a few things here and there. Quite impressive, although I am still adjusting to the ever changing page, a little overwhelming. As I am trying to figure out the advantage of doing so, I can't help but recall a conversation I had with my ex-coworkers/friends when this came out. We had a fierce argument on whether the Google Search button and I'm Feeling Lucky button should stay there.
Besides the possibility of being overly minimalism, the point gets the most attention is whether there are relatively significant amount of people don't know you can hit Enter/Return to submit a form, in this case, to start a search. Finally, this argument is officially dead, and now let's get rid of the "excessive" buttons! (unless you turn instant search off, of course. By the way, I do love how easy it is to change settings for instant search and SafeSearch now)
Without a doubt, instant search is by far the best showcase for AJAX. More subtly, it makes "uncertain search" (much) easier. As a typical Gen Y'er, I have an incredibly short attention span, and am very purpose/result-driven. I hardly go to the second page of Google search results, and always want to find the best keywords combination and order so I can fill my need with as few search as possible. That's why when the suggestion came out, I wasn't sure whether I had been drinking or not.
Now? When I type in two misspelled words, I don't need to select one and hit Enter, and then type those two words (possibly still misspelled) again and hit Enter again. If I want to compare what I see and what I saw from last search results, I don't need to choose the first suggestion again. With a move of the arrow keys, I can keep changing between results returned by each suggestion, and instead of glancing through the whole first page for what I want before I change query, I can just look at the first three or five results for each search to convince myself which suggestion is more useful, and at which I should take a better look.
More efficient? Possibly. Reduce my attention span even further? Definitely.
Thank you Google. Where is the Google TV, by the way?
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Facebook Places vs. Foursquare
After seeing Foursquare's success, Facebook decides to use Microsoft model, and create its own version of Foursquare to compete with Foursquare, and possibly knock out Foursquare eventually.
Never a big fan of Facebook (the idea of "self promoting and being a narcissism" conflicts with the teaching I thrived on as a child), never used Foursquare (always disqualify it before use it, because the description of Foursquare makes me feel if I don't have enough friends using it, it would be useless to me, like Google Latitude).
I do have a fair sense of what each does, and I am not trying to compare and declare a winner here. I just want to discuss about the issue brought up by this article.
As the conclusion of the article, the author implies Facebook clearly has the edge, due to its existing loyal following. Foursquare seems to be in trouble, and a nice descent innovator seems to undergo elimination due to inability to compete with legal "idea counterfeit" (again). Or is it?
First of all, is Foursquare truly threatened by Facebook Places?
"Maybe" is the best answer I can give, but I do think "not necessarily". Who are going to use this kind of service? Smartphone users. What does it mean for these people to use Foursquare? Click on Foursquare icon (wait for load) and start publishing to Twitter and Facebook friends. What does it mean for these people to use Facebook Places? Click on Facebook icon (wait for load) and click on Places icon (wait for load) and start publishing to Facebook friends (not sure whether Twitter friends can see them, although there is a good chance these two groups have a good size overlap).
This means, one more click and one more waiting time (for a generation with extremely short attention span), and possibly publishing to a smaller group of friends. The edge starts looking a little blurry. The practical example? On Android phones, Google separates features like Places and Latitude into separate apps. Pageonce creates a stand-alone app just for travel info, which was under its Assistance app's itinerary category originally. Twitter is not much different from Facebook status, besides the follow option.
Apparently, Facebook can also disintegrate its Places from Facebook, but not until then, Foursquare doesn't seem to be in trouble. (oh one more thing, Foursquare apparently support more platforms, and that is a big plus at this state).
Therefore, Facebook's path to consume Foursqure seems to be quite clear, make Facebook Places a one-click event, and support more platforms. Then what could Foursquare do to keep the competitive advantage?
That would be my second question.
The best feature-overlap but yet coexisting example is probably Twitter and Facebook. Twitter shifts its niche a little bit to create this "forever" living ground. What Foursquare could do? Simple options include 1) keep innovating and leave Facebook always one-step behind, 2) merge with a larger company, which has a significant user-base, like Google, and 3) make everything more intuitive. manageable and fun than the counterpart in Facebook Places.
For number 1), it is to imitate Twitter's "follow". Find something Facebook cannot do (possibly due to complication it brings to Facebook;s existing framework), or keep providing better and more features. Out-compete Facebook this way is to take advantage on Facebook's inability to focus on this one product.
For number 2), whatever.
For number 3), this is to imitate Apple's way to knock out Microsoft, in products like... pretty much everything. It is like saying "you want to out-compete me by imitating me with a larger resource? well, try harder". Better design, better user experience, making commonly used features more accessible, and possibly encouraging plug-ins. Maybe incorporating a scavenger hunt feature based on friends' rating or other users' rating on places in a town could be a nice start.
Anyway, either business's success is none of my business, and I just like to see better features as a result of competition.
Never a big fan of Facebook (the idea of "self promoting and being a narcissism" conflicts with the teaching I thrived on as a child), never used Foursquare (always disqualify it before use it, because the description of Foursquare makes me feel if I don't have enough friends using it, it would be useless to me, like Google Latitude).
I do have a fair sense of what each does, and I am not trying to compare and declare a winner here. I just want to discuss about the issue brought up by this article.
As the conclusion of the article, the author implies Facebook clearly has the edge, due to its existing loyal following. Foursquare seems to be in trouble, and a nice descent innovator seems to undergo elimination due to inability to compete with legal "idea counterfeit" (again). Or is it?
First of all, is Foursquare truly threatened by Facebook Places?
"Maybe" is the best answer I can give, but I do think "not necessarily". Who are going to use this kind of service? Smartphone users. What does it mean for these people to use Foursquare? Click on Foursquare icon (wait for load) and start publishing to Twitter and Facebook friends. What does it mean for these people to use Facebook Places? Click on Facebook icon (wait for load) and click on Places icon (wait for load) and start publishing to Facebook friends (not sure whether Twitter friends can see them, although there is a good chance these two groups have a good size overlap).
This means, one more click and one more waiting time (for a generation with extremely short attention span), and possibly publishing to a smaller group of friends. The edge starts looking a little blurry. The practical example? On Android phones, Google separates features like Places and Latitude into separate apps. Pageonce creates a stand-alone app just for travel info, which was under its Assistance app's itinerary category originally. Twitter is not much different from Facebook status, besides the follow option.
Apparently, Facebook can also disintegrate its Places from Facebook, but not until then, Foursquare doesn't seem to be in trouble. (oh one more thing, Foursquare apparently support more platforms, and that is a big plus at this state).
Therefore, Facebook's path to consume Foursqure seems to be quite clear, make Facebook Places a one-click event, and support more platforms. Then what could Foursquare do to keep the competitive advantage?
That would be my second question.
The best feature-overlap but yet coexisting example is probably Twitter and Facebook. Twitter shifts its niche a little bit to create this "forever" living ground. What Foursquare could do? Simple options include 1) keep innovating and leave Facebook always one-step behind, 2) merge with a larger company, which has a significant user-base, like Google, and 3) make everything more intuitive. manageable and fun than the counterpart in Facebook Places.
For number 1), it is to imitate Twitter's "follow". Find something Facebook cannot do (possibly due to complication it brings to Facebook;s existing framework), or keep providing better and more features. Out-compete Facebook this way is to take advantage on Facebook's inability to focus on this one product.
For number 2), whatever.
For number 3), this is to imitate Apple's way to knock out Microsoft, in products like... pretty much everything. It is like saying "you want to out-compete me by imitating me with a larger resource? well, try harder". Better design, better user experience, making commonly used features more accessible, and possibly encouraging plug-ins. Maybe incorporating a scavenger hunt feature based on friends' rating or other users' rating on places in a town could be a nice start.
Anyway, either business's success is none of my business, and I just like to see better features as a result of competition.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
China overtakes Japan as the 2nd largest economy... in the 2nd Quarter
Saw this news today. First impression, Mao's wish finally comes true. 超英赶美，终于实现了，但是ironically, when we are in the position of 赶美，我们超的居然是日... 一个理论上被我们用了八年时间千万人民鲜血而“击败”的国家。Not sure whether I should be proud for the great achievement, which arrives about four decades behind Mao's schedule.
Jokes aside, I am proud of the global image of my homeland nowadays, and it is enhanced everyday. 3rd world brothers are depending on us, and 1st world countries feel threatened by us. Nice. However, the present situation is far from an achievement.
Most of the money comes from export. What does that mean? Low domestic demand, which implies low income. Low income means cheap labor, the product most investors are interested in. That will promote more export. Wait a sec. Do I see a loop? More and more export will make the number look better and better, and to keep this number, we have to keep income low, which will keep domestic demand low.
What if we finally decide to pay more to workers? Investors shift to SE Asia, and other 3rd world brothers. By that time, will we be able to pull up enough domestic demand to maintain the same employment level? Will our own brands expand enough to use other countries' cheap labors to benefit our own citizens' well being? Or we have to go back to the self-sustained economy, like in the good ol' Qing Dynasty?
What if we decide to keep the investors interested? 我的同胞们将继续在国内水深火热，even in big cities, like my hometown Beijing, people are spending the money equivalent to their salary in 60 years to buy the right to live in a small 3-bed 1-bath apartment for 70 years. Saving for retirement? Employed people need to live with their parents so they can eat and wear like a Gen Y'er. We are surviving only because our parents sacrificed their life style throughout their lives, and we are all only-child's. It is too disturbing to think what is going to happen when Gen Y'ers have no one's saving to eat up, but instead, have not one, but possibly two kids to raise.
People in small towns? Still fantasizing about the elite status they thought colleges would offer.
While everyone is intimidated, surprised or enlightened by Communism China's fast development and great achievement, I feel the seemingly successful path needs to undergo some desperate and hysterical change to keep being successful. Otherwise, it could only be good in numbers, but not people's lives. Even for option 1, the promising land doesn't seem so promising.
Dictatorship brings us GDP growth and competitiveness by dictating foreign currency, exchange rate, and foreign investments, but it also brings us the weird "lifestyle for GDP" scheme.
Good night, and good luck
Jokes aside, I am proud of the global image of my homeland nowadays, and it is enhanced everyday. 3rd world brothers are depending on us, and 1st world countries feel threatened by us. Nice. However, the present situation is far from an achievement.
Most of the money comes from export. What does that mean? Low domestic demand, which implies low income. Low income means cheap labor, the product most investors are interested in. That will promote more export. Wait a sec. Do I see a loop? More and more export will make the number look better and better, and to keep this number, we have to keep income low, which will keep domestic demand low.
What if we finally decide to pay more to workers? Investors shift to SE Asia, and other 3rd world brothers. By that time, will we be able to pull up enough domestic demand to maintain the same employment level? Will our own brands expand enough to use other countries' cheap labors to benefit our own citizens' well being? Or we have to go back to the self-sustained economy, like in the good ol' Qing Dynasty?
What if we decide to keep the investors interested? 我的同胞们将继续在国内水深火热，even in big cities, like my hometown Beijing, people are spending the money equivalent to their salary in 60 years to buy the right to live in a small 3-bed 1-bath apartment for 70 years. Saving for retirement? Employed people need to live with their parents so they can eat and wear like a Gen Y'er. We are surviving only because our parents sacrificed their life style throughout their lives, and we are all only-child's. It is too disturbing to think what is going to happen when Gen Y'ers have no one's saving to eat up, but instead, have not one, but possibly two kids to raise.
People in small towns? Still fantasizing about the elite status they thought colleges would offer.
While everyone is intimidated, surprised or enlightened by Communism China's fast development and great achievement, I feel the seemingly successful path needs to undergo some desperate and hysterical change to keep being successful. Otherwise, it could only be good in numbers, but not people's lives. Even for option 1, the promising land doesn't seem so promising.
Dictatorship brings us GDP growth and competitiveness by dictating foreign currency, exchange rate, and foreign investments, but it also brings us the weird "lifestyle for GDP" scheme.
Good night, and good luck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)