City Journal Autumn 2014

Current Issue:

Autumn 2014
Table of Contents
Subscribe
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Nicole Gelinas
Christie Doesn’t Go to China « Back to Story

View Comments (17)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.


 
Showing 17 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
Isn't this comparable to the affinity certain American businessmen had for the Nazis and other European fascist states in the 1930's? Those dictatorships were easy to work with too, right? God help you if you wind up on the wrong side of the helpful despots. If they can do something for you, they can do something to you.
I think the comments here tend to show precisely what Nicole Gelinas was attempting to explain about vibrant societies - differences are healthy. Or, conversely stated, uniformity is deathly. The call for simplicity is an age-old quest for the utopians. It is not for nothing that the fundamental creed of Americans is e pluribus unum. What needs more strongly to be said is how far we have travelled from our principles - particularly limited government at the federal level. With adherence to that all our quarrels would evaporate.
I think you'll want to add a facebook button to your website. I just bookmarked this article, but I must complete this by hand. Just my 2 cents.

My blog:
calcul rachat credit www.rachatdecredit.net
Bravo, Nicole! Excellent report on our many derelict big shots, equally good presentation on competition's effective, even if sometimes chaotic, management of differences of opinion. We already have brilliant experts dictating to us the required outcomes in racial, ethnic, and cultural differences, with notoriously bad results. So far, at least, major differences of opinion have not been uniformized to a depressing sameness.
In Budapest, in July 1972, when I was a guest of the Hungarian PEN [I traveled frequently on the "Flying Red Carpet, doing translation work for their best poets], my wife and I joined 2 young Germans at midnight. They were quite in their wine jars by then. It turned out they were salesmen for Deutsche Telekom. They complained about Spain's democratic financial confusion. They preferred dealing with the Communist governments of East Europe: BECAUSE THEY SOLD TO THE PARTY ONLY! No problems! "What Spain needs," declared one,"is a new strong man." So what else is new with our Wynns and Kents?
If a female politician were as fat as Chris Christie, no one would pay attention to a word she said, and no media would give her any airtimenor any respect for her intelligence.
Eventually a united front is critical.
However, before that can be reached, we need to have a dialog not on whether tax breaks can be awarded earlier, but whether to award tax breaks at all.
By awarding tax breaks, government selects winners and losers, often based on the quality and quantity of contributions. That is not a system that the public will ever support.
That's why we're hearing all the chatter recently about tax reform, and eliminating deductions. Eliminating exemptions is just as important.
Business sitting on its hands ought to be a clear enough indicator that a system of favoritism coupled with an unpredictable future with regard to taxes and regulations isn't working and can't work.
Why can't we be more like China? Surely you jest! The problem is Americans need to wake up each day and kiss the ground that is the United States of America and that they are indeed blessed to be able to live here. We are a republic versed in the democratic process. China is a communist dictatorship. And Christie is no conservative. As soon as you hear the word "compromise" you've got to know there's a problem. The compromise always involves giving up conservative principles in favor of liberal ones. No thank you.
The Chinese-method of centrally planned "Capitalism" works just fine if you're positioned and well connected towards the top of their pagoda.

What I've read here and there leads me to think that their system functions a bit like a large, overpopulated, medieval fiefdom - essentially Khan-ates overseeing a hybrid banking and mercantile system.

Never overlook the fact..fact..that the Chinese simply aren't wired the same way as Westerners, the thought processes aren't the same...with milennia of different, extremely harsh social forces pushing development in subtly different directions.

Those prominent Americans mentioned lauding the virtues of today's Mainland Chinese marketing and banking are unwittingly short sighted and superficial. They cannot know this because they aren't wired the same way as their temporary hosts....apparently they can't be aware of the latter, either.

So, round and round they go, isolated in their relative prosperity.
“there’s not a single example on the planet of a successful country with a growing income and a growing job base that doesn’t have . . . an effective government working together on a coordinated economic strategy.”

Has anybody checked out Belgium lately? They haven't even HAD a government (though they have ad a bureaucracy) for over two years as I recall. And they're actually doing quite well in light of it.
Why must we only have one extreme or the other? Would it not be desirable for the American political system to be less polarized? Could we not have lots of debate (as is absolutely essential in a democracy) but have the discussion provided by politicians who actually want to find common ground and to make decisions that address the serious problems facing the country? I'd never pick China, but I would certainly like the U.S. government system to be less dysfunctional and to have more politicians who would look at facts and options, rather than clinging to one ideological stance or another.
Back in the'60s, when I was protesting, the Right's motto was, "America: Love it or Leave It." To those corporate execs like Wynn and Kent I say, well if you like China better, why not ge there and live, and take your businesses with you. See how well you do as a citizen of China.

These musings about the limits of democracy
by the mandarinate remind me of the phrase from
Vietnam. "We had to destroy Ben Suc in order to
save it."

After they destroy democracy what will be left
to value and save? Maybe the privilege and advantages of the new class.
Nice to see you guys fixed the link to this article. I'm sure Nicholas Galinas is happy as well.

No, need to thank me for pointing out your little problem.

It's too bad Mr. Galinas couldn't point out one of the other inevitabilities of doing business with authoritarians: corruption.

Maybe the next time Mr. Kent and Wynn extol the manifold joys of doing business in China they could detail the costs of keeping numerous Chinese palms well greased?
In any other, saner, society 'divided government' would be recognized for what it is, viz, constitutional incoherence resulting regularly in constitutional crisis. Benjamin Franklin in the Constitutional Convention recognized this clearly, and begged the delegates not to adopt a bicameral system, but to opt for a unicameral national legislature. He was right, and we are suffering the consequences of a fatally flawed constitution.
Well of course corporate America doesn't like democracy - corporate style of leadership is strictly autocratic, and it is more comfortable with dealing with fellow autocrats. Just look at how comfortbale the German industrialists were with the Nazi's.

But as an economic system it isn't very good and it doesn't result in a wealthy consumer society. In other words more people get rich when you have a form of gov't similar to our own.

However, I will agree that the free in our free enterprise system is under attack, and in that sense the Wynn's of the world have a point. But people like Friedman's are simply leftist fascists, and craven cowardly leftist fascists to boot - you won't ever see people like this critical of Iran, for example for executing homosexuals (to stray off topic a bit).

Also, I would agree that our gov't in a bind because it can't say a thing about China's failure to let its currency float - in that sense our representatives (and our irresponsible media) have been nothing if not treasonous.

But that doesn't mean you throw out the whole system - which was doing pretty well until about 2007 - January 2007, to be exact.
I remember when the same kind of argument was made about America not being able to get its act together. America, in the 1980s was ridiculed for not being more like Japan Inc. Today, Japan, a more organized society than America, is facing similar problems.