Postby Grant » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:44 pm
Here's the article:
Why Investors Should Care About Uighers
Rana Foroohar
"That’s pronounced “Wee-gur,” just so you know. By now you’ve probably read about this Muslim minority in China, who are clashing with Han Chinese in the country’s remote Xinjiang province. While this is mainly a political story about Chinese repression of ethnic minorities, it has some important economic lessons. For starters, Xinjiang is an area rich in oil and minerals--not incidental to the fact that the Chinese authorities are eager to make sure it stays part of China. But second and more importantly, the ethnic violence reflects what may be the biggest deterrent to Chinese growth--autocracy. I recently saw a very interesting study by the Carnegie Endowment looking at the connection between political freedom and economic growth within society. The link is strong. The study found that countries like China, Iran, Venezuela, and the like, which have become more repressive over the last few years, have also experienced sharp decreases in consumption. Basically, if people don’t feel secure, they don’t spend, and economies don’t grow as fast.
China has so far been able to offset this effect with its massive exports. But with Western economies in decline, that era is coming to an end. And there are many economists who believe that the treatment of the Uighers, as well as China’s stance toward Tibet, and its general repression of its entire population, are a growing economic risk factor. Yesterday, I got a report from Capital Economics in London entitled “Is political stability assured in China?” Their answer was no. While China has so far done well in terms of political stability relative to its neighbors with similar per capita GDPs, Capital noted that past performance was a poor indicator for the future given that Chinese leadership is so opaque. “The form that any institutional change could take is as hard to predict as the timing,” notes the report. What’s more, there’s an assumption that a more democratic China would continue to support economic reform. Not necessarily so. If the Chinese could all vote, the rural population would rule--and they may be much less supportive of the industry-led model that has made the coasts (and many Western investors) rich over the last two decades. The upshot: China may well be less politically stable, and thus less economically secure, than we think. "
I blame adoon obama.Adoon were not meant to lead or generate money.I think US governement should sabotage/do something to disable the growth of china's economy. IF china fails we gain. US government need to have that mentality! I hope we dont end up being like third world countries!
