Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: Well, Qin, you must understand that their criticism has a reason, and their criticism is basically their jealousness or their fear. They are jealous to look at your economic growth on one hand. But, on the other hand, they are afraid of losing their own jobs and economic growth. That is the reason. If the world market is poured with the cheap Chinese goods, then everybody is afraid that they may lose their own production, they may lose their own jobs and so on. So, that is the reason. But, I would also say that when it comes to the criticism I would always vouch for better working and living conditions of Chinese workers because that is one question which I would like to raise that until and unless you have decent working conditions, until and unless you have freedom of association to Chinese workers those who are the backbone of all the economic growth of China today, it would not be justified to go so fast as a big economic boom. So, it is very important that the Chinese production should also linked with the social justice for Chinese workers, women and children, especially the children. Now, it is, there are stories that the children are joining the workforce in early ages and the child labor problem is growing in China. Children are dropping out from the schools and going to work in production because they feel that they can earn easy money. So, that's a big question that the economic growth of China or any country must not based on the young children, the exploited women and the workers who are not living in free and decent conditions -- working and living conditions.

by Kailash Satyarthi

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Kamal Boullata:

by Kamal Boullata

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Kigge Hvid: What I hear is really not criticism. What I hear is a huge fear of history repeated. I think one of the lessons learned in the developed world was how industrialization hit our environment. So, I do not personally criticize China. I think China should just go for it, of course. But, please do not let history repeat itself. Please do not let the whole environment around us be really, really, ruined. Please learn from all the lessons learned around the world of how to make economic growth and still take care of the environment. I think that’s really the basic problem. You won’t be able to live with that. It’s not a goal in the world to pollute; it’s not a goal in the world to have your air stink, to have your water really, really, dirty. No, it’s not a goal. It’s a goal to have cars. If everybody in the world want cars, yes. I love my car. Yes, go for it; get a car. But, right now, we have techniques, we have innovation methods, we have technology that would enable us, as a global society, also to help China not to make the same mistakes that were made in the Western world. So, it’s a question of a green economic growth in China. That is possible now.

by Kigge Hvid

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Kurt Weidemann: I think that the Chinese will hardly care if we criticize the development of their economy or not. More than one third of the world’s population are living in India and China. They have already become great powers and their economic development takes place much faster than it takes place in our countries. We shouldn't think that we should criticize these countries or that we have the right to criticize them but we should learn from them. Not in all areas, but we can learn enough from them. Their readiness to work and their readiness to develop their country is for us more an example than something to criticize.

by Kurt Weidemann

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: [inaudible]

The developed world enjoys cheap products precisely because it has cheapened the lives of those from which it gets this products. When we can have a Nike, when you can have Reebok put together by bleeding hands that are [inaudible] and be comfortable enough waving dollar bills in the face of the world, then indeed you will be happy to [inaudible] cheap products because you have cheapened life and if life itself is cheap then everything that you yourself own and control and posess is inherently cheap. Hipocracy is essentially what powers the criticism of any sector of humanity getting industrialised. When it is strictly because of industry that the expansion [as monsters of the world] can get themselves to [inaudible]. By cheap products i assume that we also mean human life, seeing as human life in itself being [strung down] and reduced to product.

by Lesego Rampolokeng

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Leung Ping-Kwan: I find the question of advantage because I think people enjoy cheap products is one thing, and if people criticize China for its rapid industrialization, there could be many different reasons for doing that in order to criticize China for rapid industrialization. They did not necessarily just come from outsiders. We can criticize it from the perspective of the Chinese as well, because at present, the rapid industrialization present, take into consideration the needs of the people and the initial kind of consideration for the people moving from the countryside to the city and people who have difficulty in adjusting to this rapid industrialization. So, the criticism could also come within China from the perspective of the Chinese themselves, being concerned with China in development, concern for the Chinese people. It’s not necessarily just coming from outside and people from the outside enjoying the cheap products, and I think that we should not link the two together. I think the present question is to set up of a kind of primary opposition in saying that because people outside are enjoying the cheap products, then we should not criticize the Chinese for its rapid industrialization. But I think if we talk about the cheap product or making use of the cheap labor in China by industries coming from most sides of the west, that is one thing. That is another issue. But the criticism for China’s rapid industrialization has this [inaudible] reason. And the reason, which is kind of wanting for China to be aware of its rapid industrialization.

by Leung Ping-Kwan

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Lijun Fang: This question seems that we have rights to set a higher moral standard for people in the developed world. It is reasonable for us or we have the right to set such a higher standard for those people.

by Lijun Fang

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Lillian Holt: Oh, this is a very interesting question because it is about hypocrisy and selfishness because this is this thing about we’ve already got these and we want more. And the drug of choice often in our living standards can be “we want more” and so -- but once we’ve got more others shouldn’t really follow our example? And that’s where the hypocrisy comes in. And people want, they see the image and the goodies that are portrayed as successful living. And of course people want that. But there’s a certain hypocrisy in saying thou shalt not whilst we’ve got. And it boils down to this idea of the haves and the have-nots. It’s a bit like people saying we don’t want to talk about racism now, we’ve given that up. Well, the damage has been done. We need to unpack it before we can discard it. So to say to people we like the cheap products but don’t go down the same road as us but in the meantime we’ll enjoy it. And that’s the hypocrisy and I guess that’s the greed of it all. So it’s double standards in many ways. And I think it’s a very good question. Thank you for it.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: Perhaps this question is not very clear, but to my understanding this is because China does not produce quality, but only produces quantity and, as such, this is mainly meant to attract the consumers which, in return, aims at developing and flourishing by the products they produce. And for that matter criticism cannot fail to be there when quality is not produced. So, in the whole industry of development, the issue of quality is important than the production of quantity. Quantity may be produced, but if it is not quality enough then this aspect would then seem to be a debatable aspect and therefore, that is the reason why in certain industrialized sites we find the issue of quantity and quality being an issue which is controversial.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: Good question, they cannot. China is doing exactly what the dominant system says they should be doing, being ultra competitive, and at the expense of social inclusion into China. I have just been to China and they have invested in infrastructure in a very admirable way. They are trying their best. They have a very good education system, much better than ours which is falling behind. Unfortunately a lot of people are left behind still and don’t make a mistake, they are not raising us to the bottom for cheaper and cheaper goods, they are as a matter of fact raising us to the top. Their technology, their science and technology are proceeding at breakneck speed and they will overtake us in 5/10 years and we cannot be complacent here. This is very serious and you cannot blame China for that. China is doing exactly what the system says they should be doing and they are doing it better.

by Mae-Wan Ho

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Mahsa Shekarloo: Because people in development – in the developed world are threatened, scared of China’s development and of its rapid industrialization. It’s the same as in the ‘80s and in the ‘70s when many U.S. consumers were scared of the Japanese so-called threat. Japan is no longer economic threat. It’s China, with its rapid industrialization, its massive population size. These are sources of power. The developed world right now wants to stay in power. We derive the power from such sources.

by Mahsa Shekarloo

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Mark Benecke: Well, neither do I personally enjoy cheap products, because I don't enjoy them, nor do I criticize China for its industrialization. Of course, can China industrialize as much as it wants and as much as it thinks it needs? But I do not necessarily see that cheap products and industrialization are as connected as it seems. Of course, you can earn a lot of money and in some regions of China, [inaudible] region, for example, it seems that this is very much coupled, because they are producing products that are cheaply sold all over the world. Now, workers earn a little bit of money. They see that they are in power; they ask for more money to develop their family structures, I mean to build a house, to buy a car, to buy health insurance or to buy any type of insurance. I mean, the question is, wouldn't it work with less cheap products and not so much with mass production as we know it? I personally think nobody has the right to criticize China for anything except for some human rights issues. But apart from that, economically, they are doing exactly what everybody else would do if they had the same opportunities. But the first part of the question, cheap products are not necessarily related. I think the same could be done with high quality biology oriented farming products, high quality whatever type of product. So I guess China is okay.

by Mark Benecke

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Martin Almada: The system is based on evil logic and one of its weapons is hypocrisy. Industrialised countries sell machinery to the people saying that it brings benefit to them. But later the products get broken all the lie and double games come out. These countries have their concerns about China because this giant could become a global pilitical power in only a few years time and could threaten the current great powers. That's why the most probable answer will consist of lies. The history shows us that the conquest of the markets has always been the reason for the global war.

by Martin Almada

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Masami Saionji: We are not against the industrialization in China. Our economy has improved our standard of living. However, at the same time, harmful emissions of pollutions and our industrial discharges encroach on the global environment and the natural surroundings. As a result of this environment disruption, all human beings are affected by all kinds of diseases and negative aspects. Because of this, if the industrialization in China additionally makes significant rapid progress (suppose every person in China owns a car, for instance), the natural environments are affected drastically. Under the current situation in China, they seem to give priority to productions and give harmful matters free rein. From now, we need economics taking the global environment into consideration. We have no flames about the industrialization in China, if the people in China achieve environment-friendly economic development. On the contrary, we are happy to support them to achieve the environment-friendly economic development in China.

by Masami Saionji

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Masuma Bibi Russel: I often laugh at, when I go to the -- come to the so-called developed country and see all this cheap product coming from China and people are really buying it. Well, I think that when you go shopping you see something looking attractive and you pay less and you enjoy buying it. But they don't think this is just for one time; and after that, that doesn't last very well. And of course they are buying it and they are criticizing China. China has taken most of the market. Well I would say that maybe a little bit more expensive, a little or the same price you can have wonderful craft things are coming from other part of the world. Well they have beautiful things and they cannot get the market because of this cheap product. But we say that we want things nice, naturally. But, I think about time people should realize when they buy things and they should think value of money, just to not to look in one-time use and I think that other countries will get in and there will be a big competition. No point saying criticizing rapid progress of China, we should give chance to other countries to compete with China. And when we buy a product, we have to think, we really have to think that this product is what is for use and whether it's enough what you are paying just to look nice, whether this is usable or with behind it what development it is, where the country is coming from, whether they’re getting people really, really sustainable income or it's going to the development of a country. You see it's very easy to push your finger and make a button and take lot of people’s work, but it's so important that we start to use human resources and give a chance. China is taking all the market, give a chance, we can compete as I rapidly saying [audio ends].

by Masuma Bibi Russel

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Mayank Mehta: I have a feeling; again, I am at a loss and so I will tell you my impression is. From what I’ve heard the criticism is not against China’s rapid industrialization, but rather the draining of natural resources, damaging of natural resources. And yes, unfortunately, that is indeed a contradiction. One would wish in an ideal world, in a civilized world, that before people bought a product which they could get the somewhat cheaper and easier. They would look at and they would research and figure out as to if that they did buy the product will it and end up hurting the livelihood of the lives of average people in the countries which were producing it. Often times, this is not even possible. So the set of people who’d buy the products made in China, invariably have no idea that it is made in China, let alone, what is the economic impact of that product being made. So, my simple answer, perhaps, most of the time this behavior comes out of simple ignorance and lack of time, that ignorance is not the ignorance that is very horrible but it is an ignorance that is inevitable. It’s simply not practical for most people to keep track of where did that small piece of toy? Or, what’s the history of that toy? Where did it come from? What was the impact and so on? So the solution -- In the question, I would say, how can people have a balance few of buying cheap products and still have maintaining a healthy attitude towards how the products have been made and ensuring that no nobody’s is getting hurt. Only we have, once again, is to have a fair amount of education and hopefully time for people to research these things and look at ways of addressing these problems.

by Mayank Mehta

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Michael E. Tigar: Hi. Hypocrisy and selfishness. Hypocrisy and selfishness. There it is in two words. I don't know how much that needs to concern us. It is that hypocrisy and selfishness emanates from predictable places in the first world and elsewhere, but I want to turn this question back to an examination of China's rapid industrialization. China, of course, and its people have the right to development, but I see in Chinese development an increasing gap between rich and poor, the migration of income and assets to the top 20% of the population to where the curve begins to resemble the terrible injustice of the economic inequality in the United States. I see, as you must from where you sit, the fact that pollution in the cities, in the water courses and now drifting across the whole planet, has become a cost of this kind of industrial development in China. I see foreign dominance of this process of making what you and your question call cheap products, and I wonder how much of Chinese sovereignty over the process of control that's necessary for all the survival on this planet is distorting development so that it is not taking place truly in the interest of the Chinese people. And I wonder also how this process is tied to an ongoing foreign prosperity. I live in a country with a negative savings rate, with a decline in real wages, and with all sorts of danger signs that an economic dependence on that market may not in the long run serve the interest of the people, such as the Chinese, who are in some measure allied to that economic development. I wish you so well in your work, because the challenge that you face is a formidable one.

by Michael E. Tigar

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Michael Laitman: I think that the problem does not lie in China. By their nature, the Chinese are a very conscientious and traditional people; they really love to work and to see the fruits or results of their work. Any of the nations that especially lack behind would like to find itself in China's place, and today even some of the progressed and developed nations. The problem lies in the following. Our attitude towards China, which is experiencing a high-level and swift industrialization, comes simply from envy: the Chinese are capable of this, and other nations are not. In essence, the answer is the following: we must understand reality and the human society, which is completely closed and comprises a single system. As soon as we understand that each one has its own place in the general human civilization, we will see that China also has its part: for example, it will be the leader of the technical development, America—of the technological one, Russia—in cultivating the natural resources, and likewise for each country in its field of human development. Each one must only supplement the others, rather than extract personal benefit from this. After all, each nation wants to use the other nations for its benefit. As soon as we will merit revealing that we all belong to one body, as soon as we will want to unite between ourselves into a single system—each one will begin adding his contribution to human society. And then we will really merit a good life. Our problem is not that each one is doing something of his, but in how to unite the distinctive abilities of each one.

by Michael Laitman

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Michael P. Totten: That is an excellent question because people have not thought through or understood what actually is going on. They don’t see – they take their products for granted. They don’t see the ecological problems that went into producing that, or the cost involved to the people making those and the conditions that they work. Because, actually, I think it’s a great opportunity for developing countries to technologically leap frog so that they could produce environmentally superior products which would then give them a situation where they would have robust economic export markets without the detriment of adverse impacts on their local environment. In China, for example, China already produces more of the world’s most efficient light bulbs, and it is now moving into producing a whole range of environmentally-friendly, climate-friendly products. This obviously is being done based on power systems that are polluting like coal. But there is now the new technologies, by combining heat and power, China has among the largest opportunity to get very high efficiency combining heat and power in their urban areas, which generate heat, electricity, and steam at the same time, which can reduce the amount of coal plants that are required. They are spending two trillion dollars building some 1800 coal plants over the next 25 years. China could save at least a trillion dollars by putting that money into the suite of power systems like wind systems that has among the world’s largest wind power in the country, some four times more than all of their hydropower which is also the largest in the world. So, that we actually see an opportunity in China to become environmentally clean, export market of environmentally clean products, that would serve them well in not only exporting to the rich countries who now take this for granted, but also but other developing countries who are going to be investing in these products.

by Michael P. Totten