Charlie Rose

futurevisionaries  04/22/2011 03:06 PM Report

James ,

Can you help or know of people or companies that can help?

I need to save global FUTURE brands for and by the global people and countries.

My name is Kent G Anderson .

I see where 12 years of my life's work and ideas can help all people in all countries. My goal is to share the global Brand FUTURE... Future is design like a country and people's ideas are the global product. For more information about me and global people FUTURE google Kent G Anderson. My web page is www.futurevisionaries.com .

FUTURE sm/tm

925 N Griffin

Bismarck,ND

58501

USA

milmntec@btinet.net

TruthSayer  02/15/2011 10:50 PM Report

@ RENMat: "However, as long as they continue to see the world as a matter of virtue and ignore self-serving Western advice to the contrary, I believe they'll do fine and develop along the lines of South Korea, but my impression is that India hasn't got the same discipline. I expect North Korea to get the message someday and follow suit."

Yes because Chinese foreign policy doesn't follow the realist tradition. Oops then there was the whole japan Senkaku Island incident.

@nfabrice: "It seems to me that people in China respect and admire their political system. We have to stop seeing this country through our lenses."

Well of course you get the impression that they respect and admire their political system, I mean gee I wonder what the Internet censorship/firewall system is for?

nfabrice  09/02/2010 11:40 PM Report

I take issue with the recurring argument that leaders in China needs maintain the double digit growth to avoid social instability, and even overthrow of the political leadership. I found the argument cheap and simplistic.

It seems to me that people in China respect and admire their political system. We have to stop seeing this country through our lenses.

JohnGelles  08/20/2010 12:34 AM Report

Let us imagine two outcomes:

(1) America remains number one in invention, innovation, pluralism, human rights, military and industrial power-- including re-constituting its manufacturing middle class workforce-- and lend-lease style financing-- of developing democracies (and even of great nations with low per capita luxury at the bottom of ladder.)

Versus

(2) China shows us how to and what to do to deserve to lead great nations to the Singularity Ray Kurzweil has promised is on its way.

Both imagined outcomes may be dismissed as NOT INDICATED-- if you insist. But, how else ought we to consider NOW outcomes 20 years away?

(1) America could do its part with no extra effort at all. It will pass the through the next 20 years or die in a WW 3 explosive holocaust. To pass by being perfect will be easier than being both wrong and stupid.

(2) China would have to learn how to put substance ahead of form in every aspect of their formal systems.

[to be continued if justified]

hshinyc  08/19/2010 11:18 AM Report

How could we expect the Roaches of the world to present a balanced view on the economy and democaracy in China? Corporate America in general - and Morgan Stanley in particular - takes a gigantic piece out of the China Pie. Money talks.

JohnGelles  08/19/2010 10:02 AM Report

From the Transcript--

CHARLIE ROSE: But there’s no doubt that China will have the largest aggregate economy, say, by 2035 or somewhere thereabouts?

JAMES FALLOWS: Sure. Since it has four times as many people as the U.S. does, it only needs to get to one quarter of our per capita output to have more overall.

=============== end transcript =============

What does the measure "aggregate economy" include or mean-- in plain English?

It means the volume of individual and organizational purchases of goods and services in one year measured in hard money, such as dollars now or euros or yuan later.

But what goods? What services? Porn? Garbage? Treatment for AIDS? Palaces? Homes? Huts? Entertainment? Unemployment? Spinach? Spaghetti? Shrimp in lobster sauce?

Assume the measure is self-correcting-- that as it climbs higher and higher its composition tends to define a better and better life style for more and more people.

Assume that it is not: that on account of corruption, over time, products, services, and the natural and industrial environments, are caught up in a race to the bottom-- to the cheapest junk for sale and worst place to live anywhere you go.

Well, you can see the possibilities. A larger population must all live well if we are to be impressed with their economic performance. By that standard, America has a very long way to go. As do most places outside Denmark and Switzerland.

JohnGelles  08/18/2010 03:49 PM Report

....... "Joining me now from Connecticut is Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley. He recently returned to the United States after a three-year stint in China. From Washington, James fallows of "The Atlantic" magazine. He’s also lived and written from China. I’m pleased to have both of them here."

So begins an interview so many of our commentators find less that excellent-- the only fair grade in the book.

We were treated to bright people's total "body and soul" language report on the potentially largest producer of "stuff" in the world. They would take that "title" away from us-- a nation still imperfect that talks of democracy 66 years after their President (FDR) explained what "Freedom from Want" demanded-- and how any nation not embracing it was inviting a repeat of the 20th Century's maddening race to totalitarian outcomes:

..... Outcomes in the wake of scientific progress that offered us every chance to live under the golden rule-- and out from under "them with the Gold refuse to."

The interview was about production, distribution and consumption, in a world where two nations, China and India, had poor people in such abundance they had to find work for them to do that was NOT the work of wage-slaves owned by exploiters in search of profits and wealth.

If it were for exploiting Chinese, or their invited corporate partners from capitalist democracies (who were willing to transfer all their technology for fear of a foreign low cost producer who might run them out of business,) then we have great worries ahead having nothing to do with human rights in China.

Fallows, Roach and Rose, did not attack the corporations that had given China its chance. They did not attack the Republicans and Democrats who screwed the American Middle Class by transferring technology and know how to China. They did not address free trade, something not free and not conductive to balanced trade without Warren Buffet's import certificates. WHY NOT?

Because these two people reported on "living in China" not on policy aims and theories of the American Government during hot and cold wars in Asia and the LONG war in America between capital and labor after our Civil War and even before that trauma.

I dare say the critics who want China to Kiss our derriere are union bashers or worse. What they want from China is fear of Uncle Sam. What they get is none of that. What the Show told me, is that we should have no fear of them. Whatever they eventually do as to be divided by more than a billion.

[hope to say more, later] [hope others will stick to the transcript-- to suggest a probable course from 2010 to 2100 that is based on a theory they buy and not on nothing at all.]

JohnLocke  08/18/2010 02:16 PM Report

I am amazed by the one sided blinkered statements made by the China bashers that they rehash frequently without the engagement of knowledge and rational thought that requires reciprocity regarding what the USA had done for the past 50 years. Let us pose a few questions to set the parameters out so that one would know what one is discussing and that one would not be able to detract from a position.

What does one mean by the occupation of Tibet? An invasion of a soverign state or something else?

Where is the evidence that China is aiding Iran in developing a weapons program and if so, why is it impermissible for China to do so?

What does one mean by weapons programs? Why is it impermissible for China to develop a weapons program?

Antisten  08/18/2010 09:40 AM Report

relatively disappointing interview as all is known already that is being said. I slightly disagree with the idea that China is entirely inward looking and has no regional nor global agenda : unless one considers that Taiwan and all the disputed islands be it with Russia Japan Korea for instance trully belong to China without question. Maybe the interviewees here think this is the case. Which would bring the question of 'what next?' once the situation for these islands is settled. then the 'we are not competing with them' could be true only in a world of infinite resources, which is not the case. What happens when the competition for finite resources, from water to oil or metals increase is not treated here either.

as for democracy, the almost implied message here is that as long as people are economically doing well, they don't thrive for democracy. Mmmmh, I wonder. Maybe because China has a different culture, but then they their utmost to catch up and imitate western lifestyle in almost every possible respect. Could this apply one day to democrady? if yes, what will happen then? revolution? transformation à la USSR -> Russia ? all these points have been forgotten in the discussion, unfortunately.

JohnGelles  08/18/2010 07:38 AM Report

The interview by CR of James Fallows of the Atlantic and Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley deserves careful and several readings. It represents excellence on the part of the three men who speak.

None of the three are advocates of outcomes in and around China that would rapidly satisfy those who imagine for the people of Tibet or mainland China all the human rights they deserve-- but that are not really afforded to people anywhere on earth.

The rights to oppose politically established authority or to enjoy economically the bounty this planet invites but does not deliver for historical reasons, are not pursued vigorously by major Chinese government agencies or individuals.

This is not true of all influential Americans. Here, these rights are sought. And some are even distributed. But Chinese leaders do not want to hear advice in the matter from America--with its high prison population and very large military establishment of which China is not afraid.

China does not have parity with Russian or American nukes. But it does have a larger population and an adequate military force. There is no evidence that it wants to rule all of Asia, Europe, Africa and the Western Hemisphere.

So the interview is all about economics-- and very realistic when touches on political or military objectives.

The best line in the interview is offered by a Chinese person who is remembered to have said (here paraphrased) -- Outsiders see what we can do-- and multiply it by 1.3 billion. We see the same-- and divide it by 1.3 billion.--

This is the tone of the whole show: China is to be studied, not viewed as America's enemy or anything but a partner in this MAD world.

Both interviewees lived in China with the intention to know her from the inside. They succeeded. They communicate to us confidence we are not partnered with Hitler or Stalin. We are partnered with a nation that wants our technology today and may not need it tomorrow.

Our major concerns remain those of business in a global market: who will sell what? who will buy what? will both agree to minimize trade and maximize domestic business?

Every exchange between CR and is two guests is worth reading twice or more. You get the feeling you two have been to China. My major WW II experience, next to being in love with blue water through the night, was the several months I spent on our LST in and out of China. We carried in Marines (the 7th division Headquarters company of doctors and dentists), and carried out ten thousand Japanese civilians who had administered occupied China.

Mostly I danced with Chinese 20 year old girls (my age) who danced to American music as well as the ones I danced with before and after my visit. I observed Chinese Nationalist politics and heard of the Communist lines on the Nationalist perimeter as we supported the American Marines line in support of the Nationalist line opposing them.

In my mind at the time, the Communists north of Tsingtao were destined to prevail. The American Marine raider battalions, Edson's and Carlson's Raiders, were formed by Americans who had liaised with the anti-Japanese Chinese Reds.

China seemed desperately poor. But the children who always surrounded us were lively and never starving. They wanted candy and chocolate and we gave them some if we had it.

These children went through war and a cultural revolution. They are now retired or dead. Their children and mine are of an age to be friends and partners. Frank, my youngest (now 54) and his wife vacationed in China for a month two years ago. They loved it.

I may return to comment directly on the transcript--it has a great many meaningful lines. But the stuff about Israel and China in these comments (but not in the transcript) made me look for the following on the Web:

FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN:

Resources for Zionism and Israel

BRIDGES BETWEEN CHINA AND ISRAEL

by Gustavo D. Perednik

At first sight, it is difficult to imagine two nations more different to each other than China and Israel. China is four hundred times Israel’s size and two hundred times its population. One is the heart of Asia; the other a bridge between West and East. However, China and Israel have many characteristics in common. Here follow seven similarities.

The principal trait is their long history. Both nations span at least four millennia, being the only nations on earth who claim such continuous national identity.

Secondly, these long national identities were recently redefined, almost simultaneously: modern Israel in 1948, modern China in 1949. In both countries national minorities constitute roughly 10% of the population.

Thirdly, their national religions (Confucianism and Judaism) are more based upon deed than dogma, much more evolved around behaviour than belief. The maxim “Don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you“ is essential to both civilizations, Jewish and Chinese, as well as the principle that human nature is basically good. In neither civilization does theology play a major role.

.... One century ago, Wu Ting Fang, a Chinese stateman, stated: “There is a resemblance between Confucius and Moses –in their doctrines and in their way of teaching and of moulding the character of their two respective peoples. The most striking agreement is the importance of honoring one’s parents.” Moreover both religions are strictly non-missionary and tolerant towards the outside world. They do not have as a practical aim to convert the world to Confucianism or Judaism.

In the fourth place, in a world that favors Western languages, both China and Israel are proudly loyal to their respective ancient tongues and their unique alphabets. The renovation of biblical Hebrew in modern times has a parallel in China’s simplification of ancient Mandarin.

The fifth similarity: both Jews and Chinese have a long history of suffering and persecution. Their losses during the Second World War brought their tragedy to a nadir, and both the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanjing remain as a blemish in mankind’s consciousness.

..... During the war, Liu Shih-Shun, a Chinese academician and Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated: “Like the Jews, the Chinese have a cultural heritage of thousands of years. Like the children of Israel, my countrymen are scattered over the four corners of earth. Like your people, my people know the meaning of hardship and, for this reason, they are able to carry on a prolonged war of resistance without the material things that are considered essential in other parts of the world.”

It should be noted that China is frequently mentioned as the only country in the world where there was never any expression of Judeophobia, that was so characteristic of European history.

.... In March 2001 there was a ceremony at Yad Vashem, to honor Feng Shan Ho, the Chinese Consul in Vienna between 1938 and 1940, who distributed hundreds of Chinese visas to save Jews from the Nazi regime.

In the sixth place, they both had a major influence in human civilization, in its culture, literature, and sciences. World history is unimaginable without either the Chinese or the Jews.

There is a further common trait that is more modern. Both China and Israel started a process of modernization of their economy. The models upon which Mao Zedong and Ben-Gurion conceived the economy was state-oriented, while the more recent leaders of both countries launched a campaign to open their economies to the free market.

Having all these in mind, one can conclude that bridges between China and Israel are natural and desirable, and should be built for their mutual benefit. While they do not share a regional group, they belong to the tiny group of Ancient Civilizations recently revived, of hard-working creative peoples who have made major contributions to mankind.

As Wu Ting Fang put it: “The Chinese and the Jews have always been friends and not enemies. Both have been persecuted and despised… The Jews and Chinese are despised not on account of their vices… but on account of their virtues, on account of their industry, economy, perseverance, thrift”.

Source:

Resources for Zionism and Israel

BRIDGES BETWEEN CHINA AND ISRAEL

JohnGelles  08/18/2010 02:25 AM Report

Sorry it's too late for me to comment on ALL that stuff already said by F. R. B. and C.-- and on the transcript as well.

I have watched the show on TV twice. It was damn good I think. But I will read the transcript to be sure.

See you tomorrow.

John

charlizecourriers  08/17/2010 03:52 PM Report

This was a very strange conversation, primarily because both guests and the host didn't once use the word "dictatorship" do describe the Han government. This failure makes all the other words just about meaningless. It was also very convenient for Fallows/Roach to continually equivocate between the "people" and the "dictatorial" government. They are not the same. So when Rose asks "what do the Chinese want" it is easy to avoid the "freedom" word. Best of all was Fallows comparison of the dictatorial government with the American military. But given his record (and Rose's) as a draft dodger, that can be excused. Finally, one question. Who likes the Chinese government. Only fellow dictators! And clueless journalists like these.

BENEZRAA  08/17/2010 03:03 PM Report

DEAR REMant,

China's investments in 1st world countries is a calculated and necessary strategy for many reasons positive and negative in terms of resources, technology, and powere brokering. As far as your blanket statement that "it doesn't really surprise... that they should be viewed as enemies by Zionists," here you have twisted perceptions, which is to be expected, as you are an Jew hating bigot and have shown yourself to be time and time again in your writing, as have some others. Do you deny that China occupies Tibet and oppresses the Tibetans? Do you deny China's involvement in aiding Iran's military development? Do you deny that China is an important import and export market for Israel? Do you deny that most international relations are based on the concept of "frenemies"? The world is more complicated than the limiting simplicities of your bigotry. Getting back to the subject of China's economy, it would be interesting to have a separate conversation on the topic of the economics of human rights abuses in China and Tibet; then again, the same could be said with respect to most nations in the world, including our good-ol' U. S. of A. Perhaps even Israel. Certainly, Eurabia, Arabia, Asia, Africa, Russia, North Korea, Mexico, and Latin America.

REMant  08/17/2010 02:34 PM Report

Yes, of course, it is the output per capita that matters, and with respect to its ability to project power, as well. That doesn't mean it doesn't pose a threat to the US, but only as a force undermining our productivity. As I've said before I think it is a matter of revaluing ours to match theirs. We used to make the same complaints about Japan and offer the same advice. They can increase consumption, but this won't necessarily help us. I don't think letting their currency float would be a good idea for either country. I think we may eventually tho have to get used to the idea of hearing about yuan. And I certainly don't agree with Keynesian ideas that China should replace savings with some sort of pay-go pension system. But I do think they should stop investing those savings in 1st world countries. I think the Chinese probably have spent too much in building new cities, etc., stimulating the profligacy and kind of corruption turning up in milk scandals, etc. However, as long as they continue to see the world as a matter of virtue and ignore self-serving Western advice to the contrary, I believe they'll do fine and develop along the lines of South Korea, but my impression is that India hasn't got the same discipline. I expect North Korea to get the message someday and follow suit.

BTW, it doesn't really surprise me that they should be viewed as enemies by Zionists.

ShalomFreedman  08/17/2010 01:56 PM Report

Charlie Rose should have invited another guest, one more aware of the lapses in behavior and faults of the present Chinese regime. There was not one word here about China's oppression of Tibet, not a word about China's aiding Iran in various weapons programs. There was nothing at all said about the weapons programs China has been developing. Very little was said about the unfair trading and monetary practices of China.

Real consideration of China would have been preferred to this extended essay in 'public relations'.