Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

It was in today's WSJ. Backwards, undeveloped China. They have, now, 250
million cellphones, and 325 million cellphone accounts (estimated because
business people often have more than one account).

Also, 90% of households in China have TV sets.

And, they are expecting, in the next few days to have the data that
Chinese production of PCs will match that of the USA.

They have 100 million internet users.

All from Evan Ramstad's article on page B1, far left column.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

straydog wrote:
>
>
> It was in today's WSJ. Backwards, undeveloped China. They have, now, 250
> million cellphones, and 325 million cellphone accounts (estimated
> because business people often have more than one account).
>
> Also, 90% of households in China have TV sets.
>
> And, they are expecting, in the next few days to have the data that
> Chinese production of PCs will match that of the USA.
>
> They have 100 million internet users.
>
> All from Evan Ramstad's article on page B1, far left column.
>
>

Many rural areas, however, don't have adequate health care or
educational facilities and are, in fact, worse off now than under Mao.
Plastic surgery, formerly condemned as a symbol of western decadence, is
becoming very popular.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, BMJ wrote:

> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 01:12:23 GMT
> From: BMJ <parametric_equation@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Chinese, in China, have 250 million cellphones. Now.
>
> straydog wrote:
>>
>>
>> It was in today's WSJ. Backwards, undeveloped China. They have, now, 250
>> million cellphones, and 325 million cellphone accounts (estimated because
>> business people often have more than one account).
>>
>> Also, 90% of households in China have TV sets.
>>
>> And, they are expecting, in the next few days to have the data that Chinese
>> production of PCs will match that of the USA.
>>
>> They have 100 million internet users.
>>
>> All from Evan Ramstad's article on page B1, far left column.
>>
>>
>
> Many rural areas, however, don't have adequate health care or educational
> facilities and are, in fact, worse off now than under Mao.

Whether they are worse off or not under the present economic system or the
previous economic system or the economic system before that would require
i) a complex study, and ii) a comparative study. The point I was making
was that quite a bit of advanced technology is in the hands of consumers
and by western standards this represents a very great leap forward in just
a few years.

I could also point out that, by a number of criteria of significance,
there have been "declines" in at least US society over the last 10-20
years, too.

> Plastic surgery, formerly condemned as a symbol of western decadence, is
> becoming very popular.

Times change, don't they? And, over here, its one of the fastest growing
pursuits (also in the more prosperous areas of South America, particularly
Brazil).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

straydog wrote:
> It was in today's WSJ. Backwards, undeveloped China. They have, now,
250
> million cellphones, and 325 million cellphone accounts (estimated
because
> business people often have more than one account).
>
> Also, 90% of households in China have TV sets.
>
> And, they are expecting, in the next few days to have the data that
> Chinese production of PCs will match that of the USA.
>
> They have 100 million internet users.
>
> All from Evan Ramstad's article on page B1, far left column.

The most astonishing is all of that AND the fact that they are
communists, e.g. they have economic system that is suppose to be
inferior to the capitalist freewhatever society. Is it political
freedom important after all?

Old Pif

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

BMJ wrote:
>
> Many rural areas, however, don't have adequate health care or
> educational facilities and are, in fact, worse off now than under
Mao.
> Plastic surgery, formerly condemned as a symbol of western decadence,
is
> becoming very popular.

In the US 47 millions do not have health care either and education ...
well ... we discussed it many times. So, these two items don't
differentiate us very much.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 01:12:23 GMT, BMJ <parametric_equation@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>straydog wrote:
>>
>>
>> It was in today's WSJ. Backwards, undeveloped China. They have, now, 250
>> million cellphones, and 325 million cellphone accounts (estimated
>> because business people often have more than one account).
>>
>> Also, 90% of households in China have TV sets.
>>
>> And, they are expecting, in the next few days to have the data that
>> Chinese production of PCs will match that of the USA.
>>
>> They have 100 million internet users.
>>
>> All from Evan Ramstad's article on page B1, far left column.
>>
>>
>
>Many rural areas, however, don't have adequate health care or
>educational facilities and are, in fact, worse off now than under Mao.

Jeez, you could say that about here too (maybe substitute Clinton for
Mao?)

>Plastic surgery, formerly condemned as a symbol of western decadence, is
>becoming very popular.


There's no doubt we're eventually going to clearly lose that "edge."
I don't think it is quite here yet though. As a friend of mine once
said--when we get there we'll see Chinese arguing over who the best
American author was, Hemingway or Faulkner? We'll be like the new
British, has-beens but at least we can still be snooty about our
culture. One of these days we'll be reminiscing about how much better
the fast food restaurants were when we were kids.

That begs the question though: if we are going to be the new British,
what will they be then?

Brian Moore

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Tue, 20 Dec 2004, old_pif wrote:

> Date: 20 Dec 2004 18:21:54 -0800
> From: old_pif <old_pif@my-deja.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Chinese, in China, have 250 million cellphones. Now.
>
>
> straydog wrote:
>> It was in today's WSJ. Backwards, undeveloped China. They have, now,
> 250
>> million cellphones, and 325 million cellphone accounts (estimated
> because
>> business people often have more than one account).
>>
>> Also, 90% of households in China have TV sets.
>>
>> And, they are expecting, in the next few days to have the data that
>> Chinese production of PCs will match that of the USA.
>>
>> They have 100 million internet users.
>>
>> All from Evan Ramstad's article on page B1, far left column.
>
> The most astonishing is all of that AND the fact that they are
> communists,

Well, "officially" they are communists but "functionally" I'd say its a
little more like an oligarchy. One story I read some years ago is that the
big boys told all the party hacks that were in charge of factories (etc)
that if they could improve the efficiency and make more money, then they
could (contrary to strict party ideology) keep a lot of it. Well, add back
capitalist trappings to natural human interest in greed and selfishness,
and what does it look like? Ah....capitalism!

e.g. they have economic system that is suppose to be
> inferior to the capitalist freewhatever society.

About a year ago, there was another article in the WSJ about the 135
million cell phones in Russia (!). Some terrorist blew up something and it
was a craze: Russian moms at home were calling up their Russian kids at
some Russian rock concert telling them to come home because mom and dad
were worried that the rock concert was going to get bombed next, and the
kids all told their parents they wanted to stay at the rock concert.

I kid you not.

Then, I was also reading about agriculture in Russia today. In the last
year or two they are, for the first time in -- how long -- a net exporter
of grains. And, here in the USA (capitalist for even longer), we're having
agricultural trade deficits in '04, projected to get worse in '05.

Is it political
> freedom important after all?

You didn't look at the image of Paul Allen's 414 foot yacht that I put up
at:

http://advocacy.freeshell.org/a-yacht.jpg

See, pull off a monopoly and laugh all the way to the bank and you can
have your own "gilded age" just like Mark Twain, eh?

> Old Pif
>
>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

straydog wrote:
>
> It was in today's WSJ. Backwards, undeveloped China. They have, now, 250
> million cellphones, and 325 million cellphone accounts (estimated because
> business people often have more than one account).

I wonder if they'll run out of spectrum before market saturation?
I wonder if they run out of patience with each other blabbing on
cellphones before market saturation? :-)

I'm constantly amazed at the trivial single sides of conversations
I hear in public. "Yeah, I'm getting coffee. Call you in a few
minutes." Then "OK, I just got my coffee. Call you in a few minutes."
Basically millions of people walking around saying nothing more than,
"Can you hear me yet? Good." The thing is that when you really want
someone to be able to hear you, the reception breaks up.

Cheers,
Russell
--
Russell Martin R. L. Martin and Associates, Consultants in
russell.martin@wdn.com Science and Technology
http://www.rmartin.com

All too often the study of data requires care.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

straydog wrote:

<snip>

>
> Whether they are worse off or not under the present economic system or
> the previous economic system or the economic system before that would
> require i) a complex study, and ii) a comparative study. The point I was
> making was that quite a bit of advanced technology is in the hands of
> consumers and by western standards this represents a very great leap
> forward in just a few years.

There is anecdotal evidence that supports the notion that the rural
health care system was far better under Mao. Part of that came as a
reuslt of the Cultural Revolution where academics and professionals were
often required to do service on agricultural communes.

Much of that advanced technology has yet to be widely available outside
of the main economic corridor.

>
> I could also point out that, by a number of criteria of significance,
> there have been "declines" in at least US society over the last 10-20
> years, too.
>
>> Plastic surgery, formerly condemned as a symbol of western decadence,
>> is becoming very popular.
>
>
> Times change, don't they? And, over here, its one of the fastest growing
> pursuits (also in the more prosperous areas of South America,
> particularly Brazil).

It only shows the great disparity between the haves and have-nots over
there: the well-off can have elective vanity surgery while many rural
schools can't even afford a proper supply of chalk. (See the Chinese
feature film "Not One Less"--a good flick, BTW.)

This could be a potential source of trouble for the Politburo. Wasn't
that one of the causes of the Bolshevik Revolution?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, R. Martin wrote:

> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 03:45:17 GMT
> From: R. Martin <russell.martin@wdn.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Chinese, in China, have 250 million cellphones. Now.
>
> straydog wrote:
>>
>> It was in today's WSJ. Backwards, undeveloped China. They have, now, 250
>> million cellphones, and 325 million cellphone accounts (estimated because
>> business people often have more than one account).
>
> I wonder if they'll run out of spectrum before market saturation?

With digital encoding and gigahertz frequencies you can have a ton of
conversations going on and still have a lot of room left.

> I wonder if they run out of patience with each other blabbing on
> cellphones before market saturation? :-)

I see so many people, constantly, around me (walking on the sidewalk,
driving cars & trucks, and everywhere) jawing constantly that I'm
wondering if we have -- really -- a new "drug addiction" problem.

> I'm constantly amazed at the trivial single sides of conversations
> I hear in public. "Yeah, I'm getting coffee. Call you in a few
> minutes." Then "OK, I just got my coffee. Call you in a few minutes."

Here's one of my favorites:

(one side only, one set of tables away from where my wife and I are
sitting)
ring, ring, ring
"Hi"
"I'm having dinner"
"Filet Mignon in a winesauce with veggie potaotes, garnish of oragen, with
house wine, gourmet coffee...."
blah, blah, blah...

Here's another favorite
(wife and I are in a crowded store and four feet away from me....)
ring, ring, ring
"Hi"
"Oh, I'm shopping at XXX while I'm disturbing all the people around me
having this conversation"
but the conversation continues for another ten minutes

And, lastly, in a Walmart store there's this pre-teenyboper acting so "it"
("it" does not have anything to do with information technology, by the
way) and it was definitely not an essential conversation on her cell
phone.

> Basically millions of people walking around saying nothing more than,
> "Can you hear me yet? Good." The thing is that when you really want
> someone to be able to hear you, the reception breaks up.

Um... I actually googled for "cell phone jammers" and got a lot of hits.
I'm not going to say _why_ I did this. My wife and I are, normally, very
law abiding citizens. However....

> Cheers,
> Russell
> --
> Russell Martin R. L. Martin and Associates, Consultants in
> russell.martin@wdn.com Science and Technology
> http://www.rmartin.com
>
> All too often the study of data requires care.
>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

straydog wrote:

<snip>

>
>
> I see so many people, constantly, around me (walking on the sidewalk,
> driving cars & trucks, and everywhere) jawing constantly that I'm
> wondering if we have -- really -- a new "drug addiction" problem.

Vanity has a lot to do with it, too. People try to look important with
the phones, not that it makes any difference.

Several years ago, I got one in hopes of impressing a certain lady. It
didn't help--she married someone else.

>
>> I'm constantly amazed at the trivial single sides of conversations
>> I hear in public. "Yeah, I'm getting coffee. Call you in a few
>> minutes." Then "OK, I just got my coffee. Call you in a few minutes."
>
>
> Here's one of my favorites:
>
> (one side only, one set of tables away from where my wife and I are
> sitting)
> ring, ring, ring
> "Hi"
> "I'm having dinner"
> "Filet Mignon in a winesauce with veggie potaotes, garnish of oragen,
> with house wine, gourmet coffee...."
> blah, blah, blah...
>
> Here's another favorite
> (wife and I are in a crowded store and four feet away from me....)
> ring, ring, ring
> "Hi"
> "Oh, I'm shopping at XXX while I'm disturbing all the people around me
> having this conversation"
> but the conversation continues for another ten minutes
>
> And, lastly, in a Walmart store there's this pre-teenyboper acting so
> "it" ("it" does not have anything to do with information technology, by
> the way) and it was definitely not an essential conversation on her cell
> phone.

I remember reading an "Alex" comic strip several years ago where there
was someone doing that in a restaraunt, trying to look important and
impress the other customers. Then the waiter came along and told him
that reception was poor as the establishment was underground.

>
>> Basically millions of people walking around saying nothing more than,
>> "Can you hear me yet? Good." The thing is that when you really want
>> someone to be able to hear you, the reception breaks up.
>
>
> Um... I actually googled for "cell phone jammers" and got a lot of hits.
> I'm not going to say _why_ I did this. My wife and I are, normally,
> very law abiding citizens. However....
>
>> Cheers,
>> Russell
>> --
>> Russell Martin R. L. Martin and Associates, Consultants in
>> russell.martin@wdn.com Science and Technology
>> http://www.rmartin.com
>>
>> All too often the study of data requires care.
>>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, BMJ wrote:

> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 04:14:56 GMT
> From: BMJ <parametric_equation@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Chinese, in China, have 250 million cellphones. Now.
>
> straydog wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> Whether they are worse off or not under the present economic system or the
>> previous economic system or the economic system before that would require
>> i) a complex study, and ii) a comparative study. The point I was making was
>> that quite a bit of advanced technology is in the hands of consumers and by
>> western standards this represents a very great leap forward in just a few
>> years.
>
> There is anecdotal evidence that supports the notion that the rural health
> care system was far better under Mao.

I read two recent anecdotal newspaper articles that reported that, after
decades, the NIH, after finding very preliminary and very recent
evidence that the "Dr. Atkins Diet" might actually do some good, decided
to declare that more research should be funded and carried out.

Part of that came as a reuslt of the
> Cultural Revolution where academics and professionals were often required to
> do service on agricultural communes.

It was in the late 1950s that I first saw a whole book devoted to a fair
debate between fee-for-service medicine and socialized medicine and after
reading the whole book, I could not decide which is better. Today, many
decades later, I see the same arguments in the newspapers and I still
cannot give a vote one way or the other if anyone were to ask me.

> Much of that advanced technology has yet to be widely available outside of
> the main economic corridor.

I'm still on dialup ppp access while many of my friends in the main
economic corridor are on DSL or cable modems. And, I'll bet I've got the
slowest box of anyone around here (166 mHz right now, 130 at the office).

>>
>> I could also point out that, by a number of criteria of significance, there
>> have been "declines" in at least US society over the last 10-20 years, too.
>

what? no comment here?


>>> Plastic surgery, formerly condemned as a symbol of western decadence, is
>>> becoming very popular.
>>
>>
>> Times change, don't they? And, over here, its one of the fastest growing
>> pursuits (also in the more prosperous areas of South America, particularly
>> Brazil).
>
> It only shows the great disparity between the haves and have-nots over there:
> the well-off can have elective vanity surgery while many rural schools can't
> even afford a proper supply of chalk.

What makes you think we don't have this problem over here, only worse? We
just got a local big newspaper article on how the schoolbus drivers are
not getting enough money from the state to pay for fuel for the busses and
the drivers are talking about shutting down. Some are actually not making
any money.

But Paul Allen can build himself a 414 foot yacht.

(See the Chinese feature film "Not One
> Less"--a good flick, BTW.)

See the film: "The Gods Must Be Crazy"

> This could be a potential source of trouble for the Politburo. Wasn't that
> one of the causes of the Bolshevik Revolution?

But it died long ago. Or, maybe I should ask: Have you seen any recently?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

straydog wrote:

<snip>

>> There is anecdotal evidence that supports the notion that the rural
>> health care system was far better under Mao.
>
>
> I read two recent anecdotal newspaper articles that reported that, after
> decades, the NIH, after finding very preliminary and very recent
> evidence that the "Dr. Atkins Diet" might actually do some good, decided
> to declare that more research should be funded and carried out.

Acid rain was handled in the same way.

>
> Part of that came as a reuslt of the
>
>> Cultural Revolution where academics and professionals were often
>> required to do service on agricultural communes.
>
>
> It was in the late 1950s that I first saw a whole book devoted to a fair
> debate between fee-for-service medicine and socialized medicine and
> after reading the whole book, I could not decide which is better. Today,
> many decades later, I see the same arguments in the newspapers and I
> still cannot give a vote one way or the other if anyone were to ask me.

We've had a system in place here in Canada, which several provincial
governments want to dismantle. After all, what we have now doesn't
allow over-monied patients to have wine with their hospital meals.

Ironically, the CBC ran a series on the greatest Canadian. The winner
was Tommy Douglas, former premier of Saskatchewan, former leader of the
left-wing New Democratic Party, and the man responsible for the same
health care system that certain people want to take apart.

>
>> Much of that advanced technology has yet to be widely available
>> outside of the main economic corridor.
>
>
> I'm still on dialup ppp access while many of my friends in the main
> economic corridor are on DSL or cable modems. And, I'll bet I've got the
> slowest box of anyone around here (166 mHz right now, 130 at the office).

You're still ahead of a good portion of the world.

>
>>>
>>> I could also point out that, by a number of criteria of significance,
>>> there have been "declines" in at least US society over the last 10-20
>>> years, too.
>>
>>
>
> what? no comment here?

Lack of inspiration....

<snip>

>> It only shows the great disparity between the haves and have-nots over
>> there: the well-off can have elective vanity surgery while many rural
>> schools can't even afford a proper supply of chalk.
>
>
> What makes you think we don't have this problem over here, only worse?
> We just got a local big newspaper article on how the schoolbus drivers
> are not getting enough money from the state to pay for fuel for the
> busses and the drivers are talking about shutting down. Some are
> actually not making any money.
>

The irony was that the Maoist revolution actually improved China's
educational system and it's now being poorly maintained.



> But Paul Allen can build himself a 414 foot yacht.
>
> (See the Chinese feature film "Not One
>
>> Less"--a good flick, BTW.)
>
>
> See the film: "The Gods Must Be Crazy"

I did many years ago, though I don't remember much. Something about a
Coke bottle, wasn't it? ;-)


>
>> This could be a potential source of trouble for the Politburo. Wasn't
>> that one of the causes of the Bolshevik Revolution?
>
>
> But it died long ago. Or, maybe I should ask: Have you seen any recently?

There was some discussion on the BBC World Service a few days ago about
what might happen should China attack Taiwan, which it still regards as
a renegade province. The whole region could fall apart should that occur.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

China has five times the US population.
However they have a middle class of similar size to the US in absolute
population terms. even though it is a minority percentage (not for
long).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

straydog wrote:
>
> Well, "officially" they are communists but "functionally" I'd say its
a
> little more like an oligarchy. One story I read some years ago is
that the
> big boys told all the party hacks that were in charge of factories
(etc)
> that if they could improve the efficiency and make more money, then
they
> could (contrary to strict party ideology) keep a lot of it. Well, add
back
> capitalist trappings to natural human interest in greed and
selfishness,
> and what does it look like? Ah....capitalism!
>

This is probably the case. An interesting thing though is the reason
(one of) why "Free" societies are moving jobs to that communist
country. They have full control over population. No labor unions, no
strikes. Historically human rights are a byproduct of capitalistic
development. Originally freedom was understood exclusively as a freedom
of moving people and capital.

Old Pif

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Wed, 21 Dec 2004, old_pif wrote:

> Date: 21 Dec 2004 17:44:27 -0800
> From: old_pif <old_pif@my-deja.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Chinese, in China, have 250 million cellphones. Now.
>
>
> straydog wrote:
>>
>> Well, "officially" they are communists but "functionally" I'd say its
> a
>> little more like an oligarchy. One story I read some years ago is
> that the
>> big boys told all the party hacks that were in charge of factories
> (etc)
>> that if they could improve the efficiency and make more money, then
> they
>> could (contrary to strict party ideology) keep a lot of it. Well, add
> back
>> capitalist trappings to natural human interest in greed and
> selfishness,
>> and what does it look like? Ah....capitalism!
>>
>
> This is probably the case. An interesting thing though is the reason
> (one of) why "Free" societies are moving jobs to that communist
> country. They have full control over population. No labor unions, no
> strikes. Historically human rights are a byproduct of capitalistic
> development. Originally freedom was understood exclusively as a freedom
> of moving people and capital.
>
> Old Pif
>
>

I know what you are saying, but its not that simple ("cheap labor"
however, is simple to understand, but "government organization" as it
relates to abstract qualities that we like to talk about is not so
simple). I am almost finished reading an interesting book: "Voyages to
Utopia" by William McCord (c 1989) which covers several examples in each
of four categories of utopias: i) kibbutzes (in Israel) and communes
(hippies), ii) religeous utopias (Franciscans, Muslim Brothers,
Ghandianism, and Mormonism/Quakerism), iii)Marxist utopias, and finally
iv) Capitalist utopias (Singapore, Southern Cal, and Denmark). What was
also very interesting is that at the end of each of the four sections, the
author has a chapter entitles "the realities" where he lists all of the
failures, shortcomings, and inadequacies of all of the example utopias.

"Communism" -- per se -- had very different implementations in the various
places covered and not only that, but it evolved over time in each place.
They also had their liberals (calling for reforms and re-interpretations)
and conservatives (hard liners, inflexible). The book covered history in
Hungary and Yugoslavia in a manner that indicated to me that they were
doing actually pretty good by being flexible and adaptable. However, good
times don't always last and as in normal weather, rainy days are followed
by sunny days and then are followed again by rainy days.

The book is quite good, though not outstanding, but gives very nice
perspectives and gives fair credit for good points and bad points of each
system, and identifies how the system evolved with time and whether where
it is today is anything like how it started out. He says most utopias last
about two years. Only a few have lasted several generations. To some
extent, maybe the guy is stretching the definition of utopias to cover
religions and governments, both big and small, but he made some important
observations on qualities that contribute to longivity of a utopia.

I remember a PBS TV program maybe 2-3 decades ago on utopias. None of
them, even going back thousands of years, lasted very long. I also have
somewhere a book on dystopias (1984, Brave New World) that I need to read,
too.

"Free" societies? With modern advertising, marketing, and research...and
with political spinmeisters, can anyone be really "free"? Or, don't you
get more freedom as you get more richer? And, vice-versa?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"straydog" wrote

>
> I remember a PBS TV program maybe 2-3 decades ago on utopias. None of
> them, even going back thousands of years, lasted very long. I also have
> somewhere a book on dystopias (1984, Brave New World) that I need to read,
> too.
>

Add "This Perfect Day" by Ira Levin to the list.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...1448222-9520933
?v=glance

Ciao,

Peter K.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"rick++" <rick303@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103644965.746035.178740@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> China has five times the US population.
> However they have a middle class of similar size to the US in absolute
> population terms. even though it is a minority percentage (not for
> long).
>

I have heard their middle class is 300m people.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

cicero wrote:
> "rick++" <rick303@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1103644965.746035.178740@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>China has five times the US population.
>>However they have a middle class of similar size to the US in absolute
>>population terms. even though it is a minority percentage (not for
>>long).
>>
>
>
> I have heard their middle class is 300m people.
>
>

There was an article on the NYT website discussing what life is like for
many of the rural poor. Many have to leave their families behind in
order to take jobs (often menial) in the largers cities.

The 300 million figure might be optimistic.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, BMJ wrote:

> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:24:33 GMT
> From: BMJ <parametric_equation@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Chinese, in China, have 250 million cellphones. Now.
>
> cicero wrote:
>> "rick++" <rick303@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1103644965.746035.178740@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> China has five times the US population.
>>> However they have a middle class of similar size to the US in absolute
>>> population terms. even though it is a minority percentage (not for
>>> long).
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have heard their middle class is 300m people.
>>
>>
>
> There was an article on the NYT website discussing what life is like for many
> of the rural poor. Many have to leave their families behind in order to take
> jobs (often menial) in the largers cities.

I've read stories over the years of a lot of people here in the USA that
travel quite large distances from home to work at some place. For many
years I myself traveled some 60-70 miles, one way, to work and back to
home at night. It was n ot that hard to find people who traveled farther
and even as a kid (in a big city), people were living in suburbs quite far
from the downtown of their job sites. I'm talking 2 hour commutes, one
way, over 50-70 miles, one way. Its also not hard to find people who live
at home only on weekends and sleep somewhere else near their job. I don't
have quantitiative data on this but its really not just in recent years,
either.

> The 300 million figure might be optimistic.
>

The better statement might be something dealing with what the definition
of middle class is in China of today. I read someplace else that in the
early 1980s, some 80% of Chinese had TV sets in their homes. That's quite
a bit before the "roaring" '90s when China made enormous increases in
their exported products volume.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

straydog wrote:

<snip>

>> There was an article on the NYT website discussing what life is like
>> for many of the rural poor. Many have to leave their families behind
>> in order to take jobs (often menial) in the largers cities.
>
>
> I've read stories over the years of a lot of people here in the USA that
> travel quite large distances from home to work at some place. For many
> years I myself traveled some 60-70 miles, one way, to work and back to
> home at night. It was n ot that hard to find people who traveled farther
> and even as a kid (in a big city), people were living in suburbs quite
> far from the downtown of their job sites. I'm talking 2 hour commutes,
> one way, over 50-70 miles, one way. Its also not hard to find people who
> live at home only on weekends and sleep somewhere else near their job. I
> don't have quantitiative data on this but its really not just in recent
> years, either.

That's because Canada and the U. S. are mobile societies. We drive
distances during our vacations that are incomprehensible to people in
other countries. Large-scale movement of rural populations in China to
find work is something completely new to that society.

>
>> The 300 million figure might be optimistic.
>>
>
> The better statement might be something dealing with what the definition
> of middle class is in China of today. I read someplace else that in the
> early 1980s, some 80% of Chinese had TV sets in their homes. That's
> quite a bit before the "roaring" '90s when China made enormous increases
> in their exported products volume.

During Mao's tenure, the Iron Ricebowl was a sacred institution. That
doesn't exist any more and this could lead to the social unrest that
exists in many former communist countries.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, BMJ wrote:

> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:01:38 GMT
> From: BMJ <parametric_equation@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Chinese, in China, have 250 million cellphones. Now.
>
> straydog wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> There was an article on the NYT website discussing what life is like for
>>> many of the rural poor. Many have to leave their families behind in order
>>> to take jobs (often menial) in the largers cities.
>>
>>
>> I've read stories over the years of a lot of people here in the USA that
>> travel quite large distances from home to work at some place. For many
>> years I myself traveled some 60-70 miles, one way, to work and back to home
>> at night. It was n ot that hard to find people who traveled farther and
>> even as a kid (in a big city), people were living in suburbs quite far from
>> the downtown of their job sites. I'm talking 2 hour commutes, one way, over
>> 50-70 miles, one way. Its also not hard to find people who live at home
>> only on weekends and sleep somewhere else near their job. I don't have
>> quantitiative data on this but its really not just in recent years, either.
>
> That's because Canada and the U. S. are mobile societies. We drive distances
> during our vacations that are incomprehensible to people in other countries.
> Large-scale movement of rural populations in China to find work is something
> completely new to that society.

My readings in ancient history showed me that, thousands of years ago,
quite large fractions of society traveled large distances as part of
normal commerce. Ship travel in the Mediteranian was common and often.
Travel on foot, was also much more common than we would think, today. If
you would open only a few books and notice that stories can be found which
talk about peoples in northern Europe and as far east as Persia
interacting with Mediteranian peoples, trade, book exchanges, languages that
could be spoken by many (Pericles [of the Parthenon times] could speak seven
languages, play six musical instruments...makes George Bush look
ignorant and uneducated), and soldiers commonly traveled many hundreds of
miles routinely. Then, what is different today? We have cars and planes to
do all this in less time. And, since this can be done, we have a bigger
fraction of people doing this. I remember stories from 50 years ago how
China built railroads in very remote areas with human beings and no
machines. They traveled on foot. I saw motion pictures of Chinese guys --
one guy only -- actually both _running_ AND carrying a single railroad tie
(that kind of wood was heavy), and behind him was a whole line of other
guys running and carrying these railroad ties, throwing them down
perfectly and after a few dozens were laid down there were more guys
_running_ and carrying two railroad tracks, and throwing these heavy
pieces down, and behind them were the ones with the spikes and sledge
hammers. I'm just going to tell you that the two minute film was awesome.

>>
>>> The 300 million figure might be optimistic.
>>>
>>
>> The better statement might be something dealing with what the definition of
>> middle class is in China of today. I read someplace else that in the early
>> 1980s, some 80% of Chinese had TV sets in their homes. That's quite a bit
>> before the "roaring" '90s when China made enormous increases in their
>> exported products volume.
>
> During Mao's tenure, the Iron Ricebowl was a sacred institution.

My comments above dealt with China after Mao died.

That
> doesn't exist any more and this could lead to the social unrest that exists
> in many former communist countries.

You'd have to compare where there is social unrest with where there is
little or no social unrest and you'd also have to define social unrest.
There was quite a bit of excitement over the last few months regarding the
massive back taxes that Yukos owes the Russian govt and that ended with
the govt putting up Yukos for sale and it looks like somebody is going to
buy it on the cheap. This could all have an effect on what we pay at the
gas pump.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

> It was in today's WSJ. Backwards, undeveloped China.

> They have, now, 250 million cellphones, and 325 million

> cellphone accounts (estimated because business people

> often have more than one account).



I think it has been noted that the RELATIVE cost of cellular

service throughout Asia is MUCH lower than in the US.

They use a single standard (GSM?) and, where available,

coverage is much better than in US "covered" areas which

have lots of holes and dead spots, even driving along the

major interstate highways. Even in the middle of major

US cities there are dead zones or insufficient capacity.



Japan is pushing all kinds of extras on cell phones using

'smart card' technology and the Japanese are buying into it.

(Cell phone = phone, bank card, credit card, e-mail, games,

subway card, ID card, ...)



Then, I need help on this one: In Japan, there is basically

one phone company, NTT? Is that a state run monopoly? In

China, I imagine that phone service, land line and cellular,

is also government mandated or controlled.



I don't know about the history of phone service in China, but

when backwards nations modernized, they often skipped over

older or even intermediate technologies and went straight to

newer stuff. If phone service in China wasn't widespread before,

I can see why they would be installing fiber optic and cellular

rather than try to 'catch up' with old bundles of copper wires.

The US infrastructure is old and is being upgraded slowly.



Basically, Asia is geared up for using cell phones and the

US, as a composite, isn't.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Anonymous wrote:

> Date: 24 Dec 2004 11:24:25 -0000
> From: Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Chinese, in China, have 250 million cellphones. Now.
>
>> It was in today's WSJ. Backwards, undeveloped China.
>
>> They have, now, 250 million cellphones, and 325 million
>
>> cellphone accounts (estimated because business people
>
>> often have more than one account).
>
>
>
> I think it has been noted that the RELATIVE cost of cellular
>
> service throughout Asia is MUCH lower than in the US.
>
> They use a single standard (GSM?) and, where available,
>
> coverage is much better than in US "covered" areas which
>
> have lots of holes and dead spots, even driving along the
>
> major interstate highways. Even in the middle of major
>
> US cities there are dead zones or insufficient capacity.
>
>
>
> Japan is pushing all kinds of extras on cell phones using
>
> 'smart card' technology and the Japanese are buying into it.
>
> (Cell phone = phone, bank card, credit card, e-mail, games,
>
> subway card, ID card, ...)
>
>
>
> Then, I need help on this one: In Japan, there is basically
>
> one phone company, NTT? Is that a state run monopoly? In
>
> China, I imagine that phone service, land line and cellular,
>
> is also government mandated or controlled.

There is some US technology in Japan, but, I don't know the details
either. Both countries have their own "stronghold" on various parts of
industries based on old infrastructures.

>
>
> I don't know about the history of phone service in China, but
>
> when backwards nations modernized, they often skipped over
>
> older or even intermediate technologies and went straight to
>
> newer stuff.


I think this is right. Lots of what goes on over their just went from
nothing to solid state. No vacuum tube evolution.



If phone service in China wasn't widespread before,
>
> I can see why they would be installing fiber optic and cellular
>
> rather than try to 'catch up' with old bundles of copper wires.
>
> The US infrastructure is old and is being upgraded slowly.


There's also cell phone networks in some of the most backwards African
countries. Why it works: amazingly, there is lots of travel even among
'poor' people. Relatives, brothers, sisters, kids, grandparents, more
often than you think are living hundreds of miles appart. They are willing
to pay someone who has a cell phone to talk with someone else at
prearranged times. So, some people there, go into deep hock to get a cell
phone and they become a "mobile phone complete with mobile 'operator'
"who, on the spot, collects maybe three months wages for a 5 minute phone call
with someone 200-300 miles away. Kenya, also, has the highest per capita
use of solar cell-generated electricity in the world (it was on NPR radio
two years ago).

>
>
> Basically, Asia is geared up for using cell phones and the
>
> US, as a composite, isn't.


When they get big enough, they will just take over the buyer market here
in the USA for all electronics, and cut out all the overpaid,
underperforming USA executives.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged