Well I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm surprised that in a centrally-managed, state-controlled, corporatist economic system, the family of the most powerful individual in the nation would have managed to amass great personal wealth. That just runs counter to all of my instincts, and if these stories are true, it would really be the first time this sort of thing happened throughout history.
I'm shocked, really. I would have thought the People's Republic of China is above this sort of thing.
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.
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.
It's rare to see successive and extensive news coverage of corruption among major Chinese Communist Party leaders, and there's been 3 this year already: Bo Xilai in March, Xi Jinping in June, and now Wen Jiabao.
This year's unusual because 7 major members of the Politburo Standing Committee are stepping down and their replacements will be selected at the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. This is the reason the dueling political factions are aggressively ousting eachother, or else stories about corruption would never have made it to major media outlets.
The Congress was originally scheduled to commence November 4th (or sometime just before the US presidential elections) but was suddenly changed to November 8th. I don't think there's been official commentary on the last minute date change, but it's pretty obvious the Chinese party leaders want to know who's going to be the next US president first so they could "adjust" the makeup of of the Chinese political body accordingly.
I'm impressed by Bloomberg's and NYT's coverage. There's so much stuff that gets suppressed, even when tidbits of stories go viral on Weibo, the entire story almost never makes it over to this side of the Atlantic in one piece.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Try searching for Wen Jiabao ("温家宝" in Chinese)[0] on Sina Weibo Search[1], and you get:
> 根据相关法律法规和政策，“温家宝”搜索结果未予显示。
Google Translate for this gives:
> In accordance with the relevant laws, regulations and policies, "Wen Jiabao search results are not displayed.
Similar results can be observed with Mao Zedong (毛泽东), Jiang Zemin (江泽民), and Deng Xiaoping (邓小平), all past "Paramount Leaders"[5], as well as Hu Jintao (胡锦涛)[2], the current Paramount Leader, Xi Jinping (习近平)[6], rumored to be the next Paramount Leader. So is Wang Yang (汪洋)[4], the Guangdong Party Chief and likely a big shot in the next generation, alongside Xi Jinping.
Bo Xilai (薄熙来)[3] and Wang Lijun (王立军), recently disgraced officials, are acceptable. Oddly, so is Hua Guofeng (华国锋), a Paramount Leader from the 70s and 80s.
Edit: from Wikipedia[7]:
> because of his insistence on continuing the Maoist line, he was himself outmaneuvered in December 1978 by Deng Xiaoping, a pragmatic reformer, who forced Hua into early retirement. As Hua faded into political obscurity, he continued to insist on the correctness of Maoist principles. He is remembered as a largely benign transitional figure in modern Chinese political history.
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...
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).
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?
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.
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).
>>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.
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.
[+] [-] acslater00|13 years ago|reply
I'm shocked, really. I would have thought the People's Republic of China is above this sort of thing.
[+] [-] anonymous|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kamaal|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ttflee|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cobrophy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lob4tt|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pg|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jagira|13 years ago|reply
Recently, anti-corruption crusaders and media have unearthed some massive hidden fortunes.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/india/...
[+] [-] viviantan|13 years ago|reply
This year's unusual because 7 major members of the Politburo Standing Committee are stepping down and their replacements will be selected at the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. This is the reason the dueling political factions are aggressively ousting eachother, or else stories about corruption would never have made it to major media outlets.
The Congress was originally scheduled to commence November 4th (or sometime just before the US presidential elections) but was suddenly changed to November 8th. I don't think there's been official commentary on the last minute date change, but it's pretty obvious the Chinese party leaders want to know who's going to be the next US president first so they could "adjust" the makeup of of the Chinese political body accordingly.
I'm impressed by Bloomberg's and NYT's coverage. There's so much stuff that gets suppressed, even when tidbits of stories go viral on Weibo, the entire story almost never makes it over to this side of the Atlantic in one piece.
[+] [-] viviantan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apaprocki|13 years ago|reply
For that article, our sites were blocked in China. I'm curious whether NYT will get the block as well.
[+] [-] rudyfink|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carbocation|13 years ago|reply
For those unaware, "our sites" means Bloomberg properties.
[+] [-] c1sc0|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] songco|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpdoctor|13 years ago|reply
And HN too for linking to it.
[+] [-] comicjk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] byw|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven
[+] [-] gojomo|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] sachingulaya|13 years ago|reply
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/08/paul_ryan_vs_rage_aga...
Is there a name for this idea?
[+] [-] arrrg|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcampbell1|13 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] babesh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] damian2000|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w1ntermute|13 years ago|reply
Try searching for Wen Jiabao ("温家宝" in Chinese)[0] on Sina Weibo Search[1], and you get:
> 根据相关法律法规和政策，“温家宝”搜索结果未予显示。
Google Translate for this gives:
> In accordance with the relevant laws, regulations and policies, "Wen Jiabao search results are not displayed.
Similar results can be observed with Mao Zedong (毛泽东), Jiang Zemin (江泽民), and Deng Xiaoping (邓小平), all past "Paramount Leaders"[5], as well as Hu Jintao (胡锦涛)[2], the current Paramount Leader, Xi Jinping (习近平)[6], rumored to be the next Paramount Leader. So is Wang Yang (汪洋)[4], the Guangdong Party Chief and likely a big shot in the next generation, alongside Xi Jinping.
Bo Xilai (薄熙来)[3] and Wang Lijun (王立军), recently disgraced officials, are acceptable. Oddly, so is Hua Guofeng (华国锋), a Paramount Leader from the 70s and 80s.
Edit: from Wikipedia[7]:
> because of his insistence on continuing the Maoist line, he was himself outmaneuvered in December 1978 by Deng Xiaoping, a pragmatic reformer, who forced Hua into early retirement. As Hua faded into political obscurity, he continued to insist on the correctness of Maoist principles. He is remembered as a largely benign transitional figure in modern Chinese political history.
Perhaps he is sort of seen as disgraced as well.
0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Jiabao
1: http://s.weibo.com/
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Jintao
3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Xilai
4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Yang_%28politician%29
5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Leader
6: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping
7: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua_guofeng
[+] [-] tszming|13 years ago|reply
[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。
[+] [-] confluence|13 years ago|reply
Then just change it every so often.
[+] [-] songco|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swaroop|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rumcajz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _delirium|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ido|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsr12|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TechNewb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seivan|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] babesh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greatabel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frannk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] confluence|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] nikcub|13 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] kamaal|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] 777466|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blago|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tlrobinson|13 years ago|reply