The Economist in China’s Wonderland

As Brexit and Trump elections discredit the lame Western Capitalism and Imperialism, Western media doubles its effort to discredit the rising Chinese Socialist power.

They have a special way to report about China where everything is negative.

On November 12th 2016 The Economist published a short report from Shenzhen about what seems as a totally boring subject: Chinese courier firms. It comes, as usual, under a patronizing title “China’s express-delivery sector needs consolidation and modernization”. But it contains such a glaring and laughable combination of contradictions that I found it worth bringing here to you.the-economist-on-courier-firms-in-china

We learn from the article that:

  1. The country’s express-delivery sector, accordingly, is doing well. In spite of a cooling economy, revenues rose by 43% year on year in the first eight months of 2016, to 234bn Yuan ($36bn).

Everybody knows that China’s economy is cooling. It is only the actual economic activity that is still red hot.

In fact the delivery sector is not just another branch of the economy. It is an indicator of other economic activities. It also signifies the rise of a more integrated and consumer based economy – just the direction that the Chinese government promised.

  1. Although the state’s grip on China’s economy is tightening, the private sector’s share of this market is actually growing.

Everybody knows that state control is tightening… only that the facts are different.

  1. The breakneck growth of courier companies masks structural problems. For now, the industry is highly fragmented, with some 8,000 domestic competitors, and it is inefficient.

We once thought that the capitalist economists would recommend competition as a driver for better services… But in China even competition between private companies is bad.

  1. Firms therefore find it hard to build up national networks with scale and pricing power. All the competition has led to prices falling by over a third since 2011. The average freight rate for two-day ground delivery between distant cities in America is roughly $15 per kg, whereas in China it is a measly 60 cents

Amazing how inefficient those Chinese are, so much so that delivery prices may be just 4% of what you pay in the most efficient US economy. Or is The Economist really shedding tears for the poor Chinese capitalists lacking the “pricing power” of monopoly?

And, no, wages in China are nothing like 4% of those in the US (unless you speak about wages of the top CEOS). In fact the minimum wage in the US is 7.25 US$, while in China it is between 1.6 and 2.7 US$.

And the troubles don’t stop here:

  1. More ominously, labour costs are rising. There are fewer migrant labourers today who are willing to work for a pittance delivering parcels. This week China Daily, a state-owned newspaper, reported that ahead of Singles’ Day, courier firms were offering salaries on the level of university graduates.

What an awful place China is becoming!

Why “The Economist” didn’t report my political detention?

Detention_in_HK_The_Economist

I don’t have many addictions. Reading “The Economist” for the past 40 years makes it my top. One page that I must read every week is “The world this week” – a short summary of events, with 40-60 words for each.

A small paragraph in the January 24, 2015 edition caught my attention… It tells the story of some Hon Kong “pro-democracy” activists that were summoned to the police. Two of them were detained on their arrival, interrogated and later released.

No big news.

What made it significant for me was that during the very same week, exactly the same happened with me. I was summoned to the Haifa police; formally detained and put in chains; interrogated over my participation in a quiet vigil which was held more than half a year ago in solidarity with the Palestinian administrative detainees; held for some more hours and finally released.

How did “The Economist” miss this important peace of news about the detention of a democracy campaigner in Haifa?

Of course, there is no chance at all that “the Economist”, or any other major Western Media apparatus, will report political harassments by Israel as they report the plight of dissidents in China, Venezuela or Cuba.

In fact, this is one good thing about reading “The Economist” – it is the organ of class struggle – just from the other side. As such, it adopts the role of “prisoners’ solidarity committee” for everyone that they consider to serve the interests of Big Capital.

I probably should be proud not to deserve their solidarity.

BBC Media Objectivity Kills 3

BBC reports 3 killed - 28 January 2015

BBC reports 3 killed – 28 January 2015

It is a real wonder how careful editing can adjust the world view to the political goals of Her Majesty’s editors…

Hisballah killed two Israeli soldiers.

Israel killed one UN peace-keeper.

The BBC is strong on mathematics: 2 + 1 = 3.

Now the picture is clear to the public that usually reads mostly the titles.