Hidden Fortunes of Chinese Leaders(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Hidden Fortunes of Chinese Leaders
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/business/global/family-of-wen-jiabao-holds-a-hidden-fortune-in-china.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all
67 comments
You should add some sarcasm tag to posts like this. Not everybody gets it and I actually wouldn't be surprised if there is one legitimately naive and/or ignorant hackernews poster who could have posted this and meant it.
Why are you surprised? communist/socialists/welfare state nations have always tended more towards dynasty type dictatorships. Eg: North Korea, Gulf Countries etc.
Freebies, pocket change welfare schemes launched by the government is basically a token bribe given to the public to just shut up, while the leaders are busy in their corrupt practices.
Freebies, pocket change welfare schemes launched by the government is basically a token bribe given to the public to just shut up, while the leaders are busy in their corrupt practices.
Poe's law. [0]
I'm pretty sure he was being ironic.
[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poes_law
I'm pretty sure he was being ironic.
[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poes_law
My contextual parser detected sarcasm, not irony.
Our word irony comes originally from the greek word 'eironeia', which was typically used of someone pretending to be naive or ignorant (e.g. Socrates).
More recently, it's split into a number of different meanings, including dramatic and situational, but it is commonly used in modern times to refer to a situation where the speaker means something other than what they say by their utterance.
In both this more recent meaning, and in the older greek sense of 'feigning of ignorance', the comment by acslater00 was ironic.
More recently, it's split into a number of different meanings, including dramatic and situational, but it is commonly used in modern times to refer to a situation where the speaker means something other than what they say by their utterance.
In both this more recent meaning, and in the older greek sense of 'feigning of ignorance', the comment by acslater00 was ironic.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony?s=t is informative:
> Irony, sarcasm, satire indicate mockery of something or someone. The essential feature of irony is the indirect presentation of a contradiction between an action or expression and the context in which it occurs. In the figure of speech, emphasis is placed on the opposition between the literal and intended meaning of a statement; one thing is said and its opposite implied, as in the comment, “Beautiful weather, isn't it?” made when it is raining or nasty. Ironic literature exploits, in addition to the rhetorical figure, such devices as character development, situation, and plot to stress the paradoxical nature of reality or the contrast between an ideal and actual condition, set of circumstances, etc., frequently in such a way as to stress the absurdity present in the contradiction between substance and form.
> Irony differs from sarcasm in greater subtlety and wit. In sarcasm ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes.
> It may be used in an indirect manner, and have the form of irony, as in “What a fine musician you turned out to be!” or it may be used in the form of a direct statement, “You couldn't play one piece correctly if you had two assistants.” The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflection, whereas satire and irony, arising originally as literary and rhetorical forms, are exhibited in the organization or structuring of either language or literary material. Satire usually implies the use of irony or sarcasm for censorious or critical purposes and is often directed at public figures or institutions, conventional behavior, political situations, etc.
> Irony, sarcasm, satire indicate mockery of something or someone. The essential feature of irony is the indirect presentation of a contradiction between an action or expression and the context in which it occurs. In the figure of speech, emphasis is placed on the opposition between the literal and intended meaning of a statement; one thing is said and its opposite implied, as in the comment, “Beautiful weather, isn't it?” made when it is raining or nasty. Ironic literature exploits, in addition to the rhetorical figure, such devices as character development, situation, and plot to stress the paradoxical nature of reality or the contrast between an ideal and actual condition, set of circumstances, etc., frequently in such a way as to stress the absurdity present in the contradiction between substance and form.
> Irony differs from sarcasm in greater subtlety and wit. In sarcasm ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes.
> It may be used in an indirect manner, and have the form of irony, as in “What a fine musician you turned out to be!” or it may be used in the form of a direct statement, “You couldn't play one piece correctly if you had two assistants.” The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflection, whereas satire and irony, arising originally as literary and rhetorical forms, are exhibited in the organization or structuring of either language or literary material. Satire usually implies the use of irony or sarcasm for censorious or critical purposes and is often directed at public figures or institutions, conventional behavior, political situations, etc.
Updating my parser's rules.
> welfare state nations have always tended more towards dynasty type dictatorships
Living in Denmark, it's a surprise to hear that we're living under a dynastic dictatorship!
Well, technically, we do still have a Queen, but she is not exactly exercising any sort of dictatorial powers.
Living in Denmark, it's a surprise to hear that we're living under a dynastic dictatorship!
Well, technically, we do still have a Queen, but she is not exactly exercising any sort of dictatorial powers.
Putting together communist and welfare state nations is a bit of a stretch. Most of Europe countries are welfare states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
Actually when one thinks about it, there's little proof that communist/socialist nations tend towards dynasties.
Cuba and North Korea are outliers.
Yeah he just forgot the /s.
For China Inc., the efficiency is fine, but accountability is not that ideal. Consider the cases in which the companies buy their auditors.
For me, it wasn't surprising to hear this happening. The scale of it, however, was surprising.
Elizabethan courtiers hid many of their assets behind nominees. If Chinese leaders are also using nominees who aren't family members (I don't see why they wouldn't), the fortunes they control could be a lot bigger than the NYT can discover.
Indian leaders are known to hide their illegitimate wealth and other assets behind nominees or shell companies.
Recently, anti-corruption crusaders and media have unearthed some massive hidden fortunes.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/india/...
Recently, anti-corruption crusaders and media have unearthed some massive hidden fortunes.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/india/...
What the anti corruption crusaders are likely to unearth might be a very tiny fraction of tiny fractions of illegitimate wealth. They can do nothing as activists themselves. The financial and other powers these people are too powerful to bring them down. The only other way is to go the political route which Arvind Kejriwal is doing now, but we already know to do anything big in politics you will likely not be able to do it, unless you are corrupt yourself and allow donations from other shady sources.
The common Chinese understanding of government is cyclical: each dynasty dispels the abuses of the past when it arrives, then becomes corrupt and is itself overthrown. The current regime is trying to base its legitimacy on "results" - ie growth - not clean government. It is also using nationalism to divert popular attention. This may work. If it doesn't, however, Chinese tradition makes it unlikely that the party leaders will be forgiven. A bloodless transition to democracy is sadly the least likely outcome.
If I'm not mistaken you're referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven
I have a theory.
Giant productive societies will be ruled by billionaires. If the society tries to choose otherwise -- whoever else they choose as leaders will become billionaires.
I'm not sure the theory is true, but we may want to prepare mechanisms that still work for checking leaders' power, and attaining an acceptable level of competent and just governance, if it does turn out to be true. I suspect that will require more transparency than China practices.
Giant productive societies will be ruled by billionaires. If the society tries to choose otherwise -- whoever else they choose as leaders will become billionaires.
I'm not sure the theory is true, but we may want to prepare mechanisms that still work for checking leaders' power, and attaining an acceptable level of competent and just governance, if it does turn out to be true. I suspect that will require more transparency than China practices.
Thelastpsychiatrist.com expoused on this model in his perceptive piece about Paul Ryan enjoying Rage against the Machine.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/08/paul_ryan_vs_rage_aga...
Is there a name for this idea?
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/08/paul_ryan_vs_rage_aga...
Is there a name for this idea?
Thanks for the link, definitely an interesting read.
You pushed me to read it ;-)
"When everything is recorded, nothing is remembered.", the final line, reminded me of Mary Renault writing about the transition from oral (memorized) to written poetry in pre-classical Greece.
"When everything is recorded, nothing is remembered.", the final line, reminded me of Mary Renault writing about the transition from oral (memorized) to written poetry in pre-classical Greece.
Angela Merkel isn't exactly rich (certainly no billionaire) and neither are many other European leaders. Even US presidents don't necessarily turn into billionaires.
I included enough qualifiers to prevent such simple falsification-by-trivial-example! Perhaps Germany isn't 'giant' enough. (It only has 80M people compared to China 1.3B, India 1.2B, USA 300M, Russia 141M.)
Or maybe its real behind-the-scenes rulers are still billionaires (despite the particular figurehead officeholders). Or maybe the time required for the 'will be'/'will become' prediction hasn't passed yet.
I realize this is a 'no-true-scotsman' dodge. It wasn't meant to be a rigorous theory, just a thought-provoker. In 'giant productive societies' those people/movements best at marshaling large numbers of workers/machinery/voters will have both political power, and billionaire-like financial assets. The same competencies can acquire both... and power and wealth can be converted both ways (via both corrupt and non-corrupt processes).
Or maybe its real behind-the-scenes rulers are still billionaires (despite the particular figurehead officeholders). Or maybe the time required for the 'will be'/'will become' prediction hasn't passed yet.
I realize this is a 'no-true-scotsman' dodge. It wasn't meant to be a rigorous theory, just a thought-provoker. In 'giant productive societies' those people/movements best at marshaling large numbers of workers/machinery/voters will have both political power, and billionaire-like financial assets. The same competencies can acquire both... and power and wealth can be converted both ways (via both corrupt and non-corrupt processes).
Congresspeople, too. I'm sure they're extremely comfortable, and you'd find some of the ultra-rich in Congress, but I get the feeling they make less money than you'd expect for someone with a direct influence on a budget of several trillion dollars.
While the natural response is to be disgusted by the corruption, there is also something else going on here. If startups are defined by growth, China is the land where tons companies are winning startups. For every 1992 dollar of income there are now 15 dollars to spread around.* An astonishing amount of wealth has been created in the last 20 years, and it has spilled on many people.
In the US, when tremendous amounts of value and wealth are created, it also lands in odd places. Think of the early Google chef, or the Facebook artist who are both extremely wealthy. They got the money because tons of value was created and it just landed on them because they were in the right place at the right time.
I am not really making a point other than saying that this is a story of corruption which is terrible, and a story of value creation.
* In the same period, the US has gone from $1 to $2 in real income per capita
In the US, when tremendous amounts of value and wealth are created, it also lands in odd places. Think of the early Google chef, or the Facebook artist who are both extremely wealthy. They got the money because tons of value was created and it just landed on them because they were in the right place at the right time.
I am not really making a point other than saying that this is a story of corruption which is terrible, and a story of value creation.
* In the same period, the US has gone from $1 to $2 in real income per capita
Animal farm. The pigs that led the revolution against the humans become the humans.
Or: "Capitalism is men exploiting men. Communism is the other way round"
[deleted]
"All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others."
All numbers are equal to six, but not all sixes are equal to each other.
I saw some foreign policy gurus on Twitter saying that the names of central party leaders are permanently blocked on Weibo, so as to prevent online discussion of them. Which is really interesting.
Just tried, the keyword "温家宝" is now being blocked in China Weibo [1], and only limited search results from Baidu [2].
[1] 根據相關法律法規和政策，“溫家寶”搜索結果未予顯示。
[2] 根据相关法律法规和政策，部分搜索结果未予显示。
[1] 根據相關法律法規和政策，“溫家寶”搜索結果未予顯示。
[2] 根据相关法律法规和政策，部分搜索结果未予显示。
If I was the Chinese - I'd just give him a codename like the CIA does with their assets.
Then just change it every so often.
Then just change it every so often.
There is a lot of that eg see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_Mud_Horse
Yes, sometimes not only their name, but their family name, which is very common Chinese character..so when you search some thing and include those word, you will get connection reset.
You can't imagine some site like sourceforge and slideshare once blocked by gfw...
You should watch http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_anti_behind_the_great_firew...
Are TED and anti-Great-FireWall movement similar in that they are only shared by a relatively small number of elite youths?
What are the alternatives? Transferring from state-owned economy to privately owned one has to happen somehow. The experiment with straightforward privatisation, as done in Eastern European countries after 1989 was a disaster at least comparable to what's going on in China now.
One question might be to what extent the political structure even makes the difference. China's neighbor India has quite different political structures, for example, but shares many of the problems with corruption (perhaps to an even larger extent).
In some more than others. Worked pretty well in Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia & Poland.
> Worked pretty well in (...) Poland.
I don't know. Members of the generation of my mother and my grandmother tend to blame privatization for all the downfall of Polish economy. There is something to that if you look at how railoads are managed right now - it's a stinking pile of corruption and theft, and the surprising thing is that it works at all.
I don't know. Members of the generation of my mother and my grandmother tend to blame privatization for all the downfall of Polish economy. There is something to that if you look at how railoads are managed right now - it's a stinking pile of corruption and theft, and the surprising thing is that it works at all.
Well, I am from Slovakia and the privatisation lead to 10-15 of Mafia-style capitalism. Of course, the situation was and still is much worse further to the east.
Single page view of the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/business/global/family-of-...
If only we could get this detailed reporting on Romney and Obama from the Times. :)
Most of Governments are corrupt. It's not a inherently Asian thing.
What is an Asian thing is the fact that in most other countries, you can do something about it.
Good luck with that in Asia.
What is an Asian thing is the fact that in most other countries, you can do something about it.
Good luck with that in Asia.
Not true. Look at Russia, Brazil, Mexico, most of the Middle East, etc.... In general, the only thing you can do about it is leave. Few exceptions are where there are enough opportunities that it pays for everyone to benefit or where a small group of people with no resources realize that they need to band together to prosper: Singapore, scandanavian countries, Japan. Notice some of these are in Asia too?
Middle East and Russia are in Asia as far as I was told in elementary school. Looking at a world map now some 18 years later, I can see that it's accurate :). Especially for Middle East.
But I can see your point, my take is that it's predominantly happens in Asia. There are some spots of it in Europe as well. Mostly the eastern european enclaves. But they will fall eventually (or be consumed by Russia)
But I can see your point, my take is that it's predominantly happens in Asia. There are some spots of it in Europe as well. Mostly the eastern european enclaves. But they will fall eventually (or be consumed by Russia)
Asia is simply home to most of the world's population. I suspect you will see the same everywhere that's not a 1st world country (which happen to mostly be in North America & Europe).
South America, Africa, (non-EU) Eastern Europe all suffer from this kind of corruption.
South America, Africa, (non-EU) Eastern Europe all suffer from this kind of corruption.
Freedom of the press & internet has a lot to do with this. Indonesia's corrupt president Suharto was toppled in the 1990s only when the press started going after him. When you look at Russia and China, one thing they have in common is restricted press/internet freedom - this keeps the status quo, no change.
I'm pretty sure that the history of Suharto's fall is wrapped up in fallings out with various powerful US interests, including those with large holdings in resource mining.
The question though is what triggered freedom of the press in Indonesia but so far not China and Russia? Is it just a matter of time or Suharto misstepping? I wonder with Indonesia whether it was the pulling of support of America to puppet dictators after Communism fell?
It's about CPC not Asian, more precisely
they have blocked NYT, making a confirmation in Chinese government way. In china , smart people call Wen a "king of actors".He appears in "CCTV news" everyday as a hard work leader , but we do not believe him .He is so like acting, nearly forgeting he is an asshole.
But mass chinses people think, he is a good leader, who will never steal money using his power(because he is a so good an actor).
I dont know how can we do as a chinese civalian . I do not believe the next government either.
I assume this with any kind of nexus between politics and business - doesn't matter which country.
I've always found it funny that we pay those who control the budgets of trillion dollar economies so little as compared to their private sector counterparts. I mean - what would you pay the CEO of a trillion dollar corporation?
Paying public servants so little makes it relatively easy to either buy their favour or have their favor bestowed upon you with insignificant sums of money. Give ~1% of yearly profits to campaign finance - get a $10 billion dollar defense contract, or relaxed loans or a stronger monopoly.
It's just legalised bribery.
I've always found it funny that we pay those who control the budgets of trillion dollar economies so little as compared to their private sector counterparts. I mean - what would you pay the CEO of a trillion dollar corporation?
Paying public servants so little makes it relatively easy to either buy their favour or have their favor bestowed upon you with insignificant sums of money. Give ~1% of yearly profits to campaign finance - get a $10 billion dollar defense contract, or relaxed loans or a stronger monopoly.
It's just legalised bribery.
The most frequently cited example is that Singapore pays its government executives market wages, and they consistently rank in the top 5 least corrupt nations[0]
But so do Australia and New Zealand, and the salaries here in the government sector are much lower than they are in the private sector.
This is a well researched field[1]:
> In a bribery experiment, we test the hypothesis that distributive fairness considerations make relatively well-paid public officials less corruptible. Corrupt decisions impose damages to workers whose wage is varied in two treatments. However, there is no apparent difference in behavior.
There is no link between wages and corruption - there are many, many other factors that make up corruption.
Punishment and likelihood of being caught also seems to not disuade corruption. China has a large and very well funded public prosecutors office that focuses solely on corruption cases, the onus of evidence is low, it is the #1 domestic issue with much political pressure and the usual sentence on conviction is death (frequently plea bargained down to life or less in return for implicating others, but many corrupt officials have been executed).
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#Ra...
[1] "Fair Salaries and the Moral Cost of Corruption" - [pdf] http://128.243.80.167/cedex/documents/papers/2002-05.pdf
But so do Australia and New Zealand, and the salaries here in the government sector are much lower than they are in the private sector.
This is a well researched field[1]:
> In a bribery experiment, we test the hypothesis that distributive fairness considerations make relatively well-paid public officials less corruptible. Corrupt decisions impose damages to workers whose wage is varied in two treatments. However, there is no apparent difference in behavior.
There is no link between wages and corruption - there are many, many other factors that make up corruption.
Punishment and likelihood of being caught also seems to not disuade corruption. China has a large and very well funded public prosecutors office that focuses solely on corruption cases, the onus of evidence is low, it is the #1 domestic issue with much political pressure and the usual sentence on conviction is death (frequently plea bargained down to life or less in return for implicating others, but many corrupt officials have been executed).
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#Ra...
[1] "Fair Salaries and the Moral Cost of Corruption" - [pdf] http://128.243.80.167/cedex/documents/papers/2002-05.pdf
There is no link between wages and corruption - there are many, many other factors that make up corruption.
Yes there is. If public servants are grossly underpaid, or vulnerable, they'll turn to corruption for income or safety (think of a policeman looking the other way in countries like Argentina). In Argentina, for instance, policemen were very poorly paid after the 2001 crash, and at the same time, an incredible wave of crime washed over the country, much like in Greece today. Police started getting paid much less, for a much more dangerous job (the murder rate for policeman rose dramatically). So they simply demanded bribes (long list of ways how to do this) and stayed out of trouble when they could. To compensate for the danger imposed by their job, they started looking the other way more.
Yes there is. If public servants are grossly underpaid, or vulnerable, they'll turn to corruption for income or safety (think of a policeman looking the other way in countries like Argentina). In Argentina, for instance, policemen were very poorly paid after the 2001 crash, and at the same time, an incredible wave of crime washed over the country, much like in Greece today. Police started getting paid much less, for a much more dangerous job (the murder rate for policeman rose dramatically). So they simply demanded bribes (long list of ways how to do this) and stayed out of trouble when they could. To compensate for the danger imposed by their job, they started looking the other way more.
The prosecution systems in China are led by the local and central party leaders, who actually supervise their administrative counterparts, i.e. the mayors and governors. In several sensitive cases of local government head appointment, the removal of local police and prosecutor heads followed, in a violent way that some of those removed got prosecuted, even committed suicide[1].
IMHO, as the lack of independency in justice and persecution branch go, it is highly doubtful that the prosecutors were not a tool for political use other than purely anti-bribery purposes.
[1] http://english.enorth.com.cn/system/2007/07/09/001760265.sht...
IMHO, as the lack of independency in justice and persecution branch go, it is highly doubtful that the prosecutors were not a tool for political use other than purely anti-bribery purposes.
[1] http://english.enorth.com.cn/system/2007/07/09/001760265.sht...
>>Paying public servants so little makes it relatively easy to either buy their favour or have their favor bestowed upon you with insignificant sums of money.
I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that paying the politicians well will take care of the problem of corruption. If nothing it may just remain same or even worsen. Politicians are corrupt because they can steal and get away, they have a lot of power in their hand and they use it.
Think of it this way, if you have means to make $100 billion and you could easily hide that through safe way- What will stop you from doing that? A big fat pay check? I don't think so. So as you can make money easily and get away with it, you will do it. Regardless of what your paycheck actually is.
To give you an example Insider trading scandals are happening despite fat CEO compensations.
I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that paying the politicians well will take care of the problem of corruption. If nothing it may just remain same or even worsen. Politicians are corrupt because they can steal and get away, they have a lot of power in their hand and they use it.
Think of it this way, if you have means to make $100 billion and you could easily hide that through safe way- What will stop you from doing that? A big fat pay check? I don't think so. So as you can make money easily and get away with it, you will do it. Regardless of what your paycheck actually is.
To give you an example Insider trading scandals are happening despite fat CEO compensations.
Can someone put those numbers in context? Are they large or small compared to what you'd expect/other elites?
Unheard of. Ever seen a western politician (or their family) go bankrupt while in office? This runs counter to odds, statistics, etc. The only difference is the methods and the scale.
Not that western politicians are squeaky clean, but there's a bit of a difference between not going bankrupt and amassing billion dollar fortunes while in office.
Not going bankrupt is just a proxy that (in the absence of actual names and numbers) allows us to reason about their habits. It doesn't mean that they only still enough not to go bankrupt :-)
And then there is scale. There is only one western country where money is on a comparable scale.
And then there is scale. There is only one western country where money is on a comparable scale.
In the U.S., our politicians get rich(er) after they leave office. Same for appointed government officials. Still a degree of corruption, but not as bad.
A fun sample to the contrary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Illinois
I'm shocked, really. I would have thought the People's Republic of China is above this sort of thing.