There is no way to communicate the drastic change that's taken place
in our banker's (one trillion dollars of holdings) land.

I once read of rumors of cannabillism (a la starvation) in remote
China in HARPER'S MAGAZINE.

That's how deprived and backward it apparently was.

Their situation was sorta like the North Koreans' plight of today

Americans observed the 1960s Chinese Cultural Revolution as truly
awesome craziness: the younger Chinese were
zombie-like and murdering & humiliating so-called capitalist,
Confucist, roader, running dog dissenters.

It was existential totalitarianism if there ever were
totalitarianism.

(Give me a better description of what it was, if existential doesn't
belong.)

Running dogs and capitalist roders (sp?) were particular favorite
flame catchwords.

On Apr 26, 10:10 am, Robert Cohen msn.com> wrote:

On Apr 26, 10:10 am, Robert Cohen msn.com> wrote:

Not quite yet. GDP in Japan is still substantially higher than China's
- and of course, with a much smaller population, GDP per capita is
much, much higher in Japan. Neither can touch the US with a GDP nearly
4x Japan's.

But interesting article.

On Apr 26, 12:39 pm, Fred Weiss papertig.com> wrote:

On Apr 26, 9:25 pm, Robert Cohen msn.com> wrote:

Tried what?

Unemployment was almost as high in 1938 (19%%) as it had been in 1932.

Repeating, unemployment was almost as high in 1938 as it had been in
1932.

What about that don't you understand? So, were FDR's policies a
disaster in the short or the long run?

It was only the build-up to the war, which had nothing to do with the
New Deal, per se, which started to bring it down. However, even with
that, unemployment still stood at 10%% in 1941. So, take away the war
build-up and one can assume that unemployment would have remained
intractably high.

Are we now talking "short-run" or "long-run"? Or what?

Fred Weiss

On Apr 26, 10:19 pm, Fred Weiss papertig.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:10:14 -0700, Robert Cohen wrote:

"China has plenty of problems: Tibet, pollution, political repression,
the Great Firewall, you name it. Even so, it is hard not to be optimistic
when you meet someone like Mr. Yu."

Wow this Mr. Yu must be some guy to counter-balance all this other stuff!!

Really, it's hard not to be optimistic when your sitting on your ass in
NYC pimping out portfolio designs that service NYSE:NYT, et al.

Here's some China insight. China is political powder keg and is going to
blow big sooner or latter. Where then will the NYT and all the lovers of
money and/or freedom stand? I wonder. Well, hardly.

On Apr 27, 9:03 am, Robert Cohen msn.com> wrote:

Try addressing my actual comments, not your straw man version of it.

You mean you agree that the New Deal was a failure?

None of which obviously helped the economy - or the millions of people
who were out of work. In fact, obviously, they *hurt* the economy - as
they, and similar measures, do now.

You know, Robert, you're the one who posted - and hailed - the article
about China and the *different* approach they have taken to build
their economy.

Do I once again also need to cite the example of Ireland or the Baltic
states?

On Apr 27, 12:54 pm, Fred Weiss papertig.com> wrote:

On Apr 27, 7:02 pm, Robert Cohen msn.com> wrote:

They had that before. Now they have the wealth to deal with it -
because of capitalism. In contrast to FDR, who tried to strangle it,
the Chinese realize it's "the goose laying the golden eggs". So,
whereas China is experiencing rapid and substantial economic growth
and a rising standard of living, the New Deal resulted in economic
stagnation and continued impoverishment.

It's better than famine, just as it was for us. They'll have to deal
with it. Now they have the means to do so.

True. China has no history or tradition of political freedom and they
fear it. Americans would never put up with that kind of control.