How China's Public Officials Stole $120 Billion and Fled
time.com
time.com
Any individuals first and only desire is to take care of himself and his family. Just about anyone will go to any means necessary, illegal means included. In the former USSR and even today a lot of people involved in government were using the government as a means to take care of them and their families. This is because prior to the 90's, there was no other way to achieve wealth. Secondly, once a system takes on characters that are willing to bend rules, everyone is involved. Those who are not willing to participate are thrown out, ignored or placed in positions that will make them re-think their approach to their career and their methods to take care of their family. Sure, there are ethical considerations here, but realistically, if everyone around you is making millions and living a great life, you will inevitably follow their path as well. 18,000!! 18,000 people participated here! I'm sure there are scores of others that have taken a little bit here and there as well. Maybe got by with only a few thousand vs. millions.
Communism is a horribly corrupt government form. It forces too much activity to flow through too few people. I would hope that China takes a stand against this, but my skepticism doesn't allow me to believe that the ones pursuing this investigation are any different than the culprits.
What makes China "no longer a communist country"?
Can anyone run for office? Are there significant legal and extra-legal controls on "private" property?
Every communist country has allowed some private property, so if your answer is "Chinese can now own land/cars", please tell us where the line is on that slippery slope.
1. No more class war 2. Property might be "publicly owned", but it's as good as private. 3. There is an absolutely huge disparity in income. My elevator operator got paid 500 RMB/mo, while each one of the random gifts I got for just happening to be close to someone important, was over 2000 RMB.
A relative of mine recently bought a large plot of farm land from a bunch of farmers, for a substantial sum of money - much more than its value. He spent a load of money and bought high-end equipment and machines, and hired agricultural specialists to consult on best practices. He started growing high-quality fruits/vegetables purely for family consumption, and as a pass-time. In fact, when he's bored, he just goes to the farm and starts farming.
After a while, the farmers realized how much value their land had gained (not due to economic reasons, but because he had invested so heavily in it) and started to complain. The government did absolutely nothing. What I'm trying to emphasize is that class wars are no longer in place, and recognition of private rights are soaring. China, really, is a capitalist state... a capitalism without democracy.
Just because not everyone can be a leader, doesn't mean it's a communism. Do you know what happens when anyone can be a leader and run for office? Take Quebec for example. In the most recent Canadian elections, a girl ran for MP (Canadian congress) for lulz, and went to vegas during the election. She did absolutely no campaigning, and came back to find that she had won the seat.
There was under communism as well - do you really think that the leaders were poor? (You could have argued that only those in govt were rich before. Then I'd have asked how many of the current rich are not "connected".)
> their land had gained (not due to economic reasons, but because he had invested so heavily in it) and started to complain.
(1) "their land" hadn't gained any value - it wasn't their land after they sold it. (2) investing IS an economic reason for something to go up in value.
> The government did absolutely nothing.
That happened under communism as well.
Is he connected? Are they politically disfavored?
> Just because not everyone can be a leader, doesn't mean it's a communism.
One of the essential properties of communism is that only the politically reliable are eligible for public office.
It's not the only essential property, but it is one of them.
> Do you know what happens when anyone can be a leader and run for office?
Yes, I do - random people run for office. Sometimes they win. That can't happen in a communist society.
If you define communism to be like capitalism, then the argument is semantics; if that's the case, I'll concede.
investing IS an economic reason for something to go up in value. - I'm aware... I suppose what I implied 'external'... such as land increasing in value several times without action on his part.
You're confusing theory with reality.
Since we're starting with the assumption that China was communist in the past, that definition is problematic because it tells us that China was never communist.
I assumed that you wanted to use a definition of communism that both Mao-era China and the USSR satisfied at some time. Was I wrong?
In China, they _will_ execute you, your wife, AND your mistress. And they will keep arresting or executing your acquaintances until someone comes up with the missing money.
Then they will execute that person as well!
That's a bit of an exaggeration, but not much.
What is sad is that some of these guys _might_ have been willing to cooperate in returning the stolen funds were it not for the aggressive nature of anti-corruption prosecutions over there. Now, however, the whole thing has spiraled out of hand. The Chinese are swimming in money. They don't even _want_ the money back...they just want the corrupt guy or gal dead. So there is very little incentive for witnesses or corrupt officials or whatever to cooperate if they can manage to flee. And they all go to the US or Canada, where they are protected. So the whole thing has deteriorated into a grudge match.
Slap on the wrist? US public officials who engage in corruption are often rewarded. (Rod Blagojevich, the former Ill governor is going to jail because he pissed off the wrong people, not because he was corrupt.)