_amp;quot;Low human rights advantage_amp;quot; amazing competitiveness _Transfer from Qin Hui_

Document Sample
_amp;quot;Low human rights advantage_amp;quot; amazing competitiveness _Transfer from Qin Hui_ Powered By Docstoc
					"Low human rights advantage" amazing competitiveness
(Transfer from Qin Hui)
   One bid
"South Wind": The Government of the Chinese
"economic miracle" there is no doubt contributed. In these 30
years, the role of government in which part of the urgent need to review it?
Qin Hui: I think that some economists advocate the use of state power to bargain
away the rights of workers to form a so-called "'transaction
costs' decrease." I have never been this kind of
"transaction costs" in quotes because it is not a Western sense of
transaction cost economics.
Such as Coase said, the transaction costs have two important principles: first, the
party is not deprived of the right to bargain, and only on this basis to form a collective
bargaining, negotiations should be decentralized to avoid the costs incurred. About
why companies such as Coase does, generally speaking we have the ability or the
right of every worker as self-employed, not employed by the company, but why not
directly to consumers because of high transaction costs. So firm is a transaction cost
savings in the organization, but most people tend to enter the business. But Kos is
absolutely not said manor built serfdom can save transaction costs. However,
according to the logic of some economists, it is no bargain is to save transaction costs.
Second, the transaction cost is the cost of the whole community, not one of the almost
mandatory bid.
Kos has two books on the subject of a good one "nature of the
business," I said by some people's understanding of
China's direct called "the nature of slavery" on it,
rather than "nature of the business," the. They think that the
nature of business is to reduce the transaction costs of organization, that slavery is not
more of this nature? Coase apparently do not think so. Because slavery is trading
away the rights of many people, but the cost is based on the so-called Coase protect
this right (this is different estate business and slavery) as the prerequisite. The second
book is "social cost", why did he say that "social
cost" rather than "one bid question" what? Some of
our theorists speak of "cost" is only one bid, the other what he
paid no consideration, apparently is not the intention of Coase.
I'm not saying necessarily Coase's argument on the so-called
"neoliberalism" in theory there is no problem, but the Chinese
are engaged in is simply not such thing. China's problems can not let the
Western economist in charge, and and the new liberalism has nothing to do. However,
the emergence of the Chinese miracle is clearly benefiting from no bargaining room
for a mechanism.
This unilateral bid to save "transaction cost" is actually a
gangster logic. Who can say I robbed you with a knife, you reduce costs? However,
this argument is indeed very popular in China. For example some people said that
collectivization is a good choice because the State to deal with the numerous small
farmers, high cost, the state tied to a collective, you can not bargain, transaction costs
would be less. States therefore have plenty of cheap food, but the peasants starved to
death how much? This count the cost? They do not think this is the cost, but also
created a concept - "the state and small farmers to reduce transaction
costs." Why not "the cost of small farmers and the State
Game," then? This concept simply does not Kos seems to pass the. Some
logic is more likely to workers off state, the so-called "transaction
costs" lower. You say the costs, the cost is the highest when the
people's commune, and which country in the industrialized paid a high cost
of so many people starve to death?
"South         Wind":           when       the     country       become
"capitalists" as "state employees" of the
other party actually lost the ability of their rights and the "bargaining
Qin Hui: public assets in theory, all are owners, not everyone can say that the owner,
this is not the main employer relationship. Private enterprises lay off workers, in the
modern state of course bound by the labor law, but the main employer relationship,
the laid-off workers can be said is perfectly justified. I do business, and I bear the risk
of assets, bankruptcy I may be jumping to. Contract is subject to mutual agreement
signed. The difference is that directors in the state-owned enterprises and workers
should have the same status, then what some people want to be rid of? On what basis
do some people sacrifice? On what basis some people are capable and others are not
capable even try to not have access to?
In comparison, the privatization of Eastern European countries the cost of bargaining
is relatively high. Usually hastened privatization, reduction of the number of workers
by the employers and employees to talk about, the state will not use power to mobilize
the reduction of the number of workers, or assets given to specific individuals. The
so-called principle of maximizing the recovery of capital, openness, impartiality, the
principle of universal participation, or the same as the privatization of securities, each
one, without prior consideration to the workers off. Of course, the transition is
complete, the consultation between employers and employees is another matter, and
there unions, not to say that the off workers first and then made off on the rest of the
workers with job responsibilities and not just the government and capable both in
private transactions completed.
"South Wind": Some years ago, I interviewed Mr. Lu Xueyi
sociologist, he, too, Mr. Mayor we talk about "personnel to increase
efficiency," criticism that the government should first secure full
Qin Hui: I suspect from the "personnel to increase efficiency" to
the privatization of certain procedural intentionally. Had reason to use state power to
engage in "shedding workers," perhaps in preparation for
privatization. As private enterprises do not care "personnel to increase
efficiency," because it will not start hiring redundant. Perhaps conscious
state before the reform in property rights to engage in "personnel to
increase efficiency", of course, can say that this has eschewed ideology, the
meaning of risk; on the other hand, it can be said to use state power to the workers off.
Workers and capitalists to bargain, they can not bargain with the state, because the
union is state-run trade union. This union between the workers and private enterprise
can play a role, but obviously in the state-owned enterprises and workers tend to favor
"South Wind": before we talk about trade union is a
"welfare union" rather than "trade union
rights." But had to admit, the "welfare" is the word a
long time discount.
Qin Hui: Yes, ah, China has always been a negative welfare state, it is now.
China's progress on performance in reducing the negative welfare, namely
"zero benefit" gradually by interference, at best, secondary
distribution of non-aggravated by social differentiation. Now more high-income
earners and welfare, low-income low benefits. This welfare arrangements, or reflect
the lack of bargaining rights.
Looper effect
"South Wind": In the recent article in your reflection once again
talked about "inchworm effect." Generally speaking, the Left
claims welfare, right for freedom, the struggle between left and right that the so-called
"scale effect." However, in the "inchworm
effect", the "balance" the interests of around only for
their own favor.
Qin Hui: In recent years, policy reform, even reform strategy is not without
adjustment, or even adjust the frequency rare in the world. But like how to adjust all
wrong, this is the so-called "inchworm effect": Just like putting
a reduction which only move in one direction geometrid, the policies are
"left", people's freedom is reduced, but the benefits
are difficult to increase ; policy a "right" to shrink the welfare of
the people, but freedom is difficult to expand. A talk of "small
government" officials to shirk responsibility, but the power is still hard to
limit; a talk, "big government" officials on the expansion of
power, but the responsibility is still difficult to pursue. To the right of public assets on
the fast track "lost", but how many people's private
property is not protected; to the left, people's private property is violated,
but still could not restrain public wealth.
"South Wind": Just like the stock market into a Super ATM, it
was continually setting and then put the money set Zuozhuang.
Qin Hui: Some people have that argument, anyway, then the point of state-owned
enterprises, engage in you would be finished not finished, even disaster, corruption,
anyway, sooner or later some people to the rich. I said that those in power if the true
promise to engage the end of this time is no longer engaged in nationalization, and
that no further increase in the state-owned assets that are OK, but power has never
promised. Some people engage in light of the state-owned assets, and from people
engaged in the hands of nationalization and privatization of primary nationalization
hand, two hands are not wrong ah! This has never been out of state-owned assets,
when completed, but also in increasingly multi-trend.
In the "Lang Cyclone," after the Chinese began to oppose the
so-called "new liberalism", a moment the wind appears to turn
"left", thus crowding out private capital "new
nationalization" to designate the state-owned monopolies such as
"big government" policies have been proposed, but At the same
time, a new wave of "stock change" has taken the essence of an
almost "give away the state-owned shares" and forms of
privatization, "the right" far in excess of "Lang
cyclone" before all the state share reduction program. Mr. Wu Jinglian
abbreviated form criticism, and immediately attracted condemning. Also, a few years
ago to state-owned enterprises "swindling money out of this
predicament," long-term bear market high up the majority of the small
retail investors windy hole. If we had before the reform in state-owned enterprises is
not in no hurry to set up Bureau of swindling money, there would not be so many
people in the tank. When the stock fell from more than 2300 more than 900, so most
of the flesh of small investors exit, just wait for a large dealer "buy the
dips" - and then "state-owned shares gratis" only
large-scale introduction of the reform, about those who give bargain-hunting
Complimentary 3000 billion in net wealth! This looper as a release of a collection of
state-owned assets given away, and small shareholders are also Kuidiao private
property, only a backing of bargain-hunting by two-take-all, best of the
"nationalization" and "privatization" of
Similarly, in the land, today stressed the accelerated urbanization, will be large-scale
deprivation of the right of farmers to "make the city enclosure,"
but farmers are not given equal treatment after entering the city; tomorrow emphasize
the urbanization and the "rural renaissance", it limits , canceled
the peasants of movement, but the official still can ring their land. Said today that the
shortage of land to "protect the land", so to combat the
"small property", is strictly prohibited farmers from land sales,
but the official still would like to "sign" on the
"sign"; day it can be easy to let go of land development, the tide
was official launched Enclosure But farmers are still not allowed to enter the market
of land ... ... Under this system even if the policy designers out of good intentions,
there would be impossible to escape the "family pass to win the right
to" circle.
"South Wind": though often we speak of "owned
Economy" is a big transition context, the mainstream ideology and
political practice, is still "The Wealth of Nations" do more,
"The Wealth of the people" do less . So, the growth of Chinese
enterprises in the "national retreat" and the Beginning of the
circulation of wealth, what role?
Qin Hui: I think businesses, if the leave of democracy, freedom of the promotion, that
is left is not right, the right is not right. You can not be left a little better in the final
analysis, the right a little is good, or big nations, or small country well. Now is like
that. China only towards freedom, democracy, improve the direction of solving the
problem may have, or like I said, "inchworm effect", the
country back into the public Ye Hao, Privitization Ye Hao, wealth would not flow to
the      common        people     pocket.     Worse     is   that     some       point     the
"nationalization" and "privatization" will
again, not some people call a "one-time completion."
"South Wind": But now the money spent by our government for
one year the equivalent of 370 million has been urban residents, 12.3 million farmers
a year to spend the money. Government tax revenue is equivalent to civil half of the
total disposable income.
Qin Hui: So, can not stop the practice since the nationalization, then what was the
state-owned assets into their own pocket, we will not oppose it? On what basis that
this would not lead to more bad results? Moreover, such self-reinforcing behavior,
will further strengthen the "nationalization - privatization"
initiative, the final state to take the more people are holding more.
Now tell you to share the results of reform, but any country that
"sharing" are fighting out. I am not a radical who does not
believe that China's problems can be solved in one step, but I am opposed
to "inner-party democracy" or "grassroots
democracy" in the formulation, in fact, the path of reform should not be so
considered. This is not the bottom up or top-down, nor to the outside or from within
the party outside the party into the party's problems. In fact, China has
always two directions are the same, I would like to say that, in fact this process is to
use my words, "the right to limit freedom" and
"accountability for the welfare of the" two-way process of
progressive . On the one hand, we are constantly accused of cross-border power,
albeit in the context of blame to blame. But as long as you continue to exert this
pressure, they do not provide reasons for its expansion of power, generally speaking,
it will always limit the power, if not in one step, it will still get better. At the same
time, asked the Government to do the right thing, the best of the best of responsibility.
Even in China, asked the Government to be responsible from cradle to grave welfare
should they be, because your power is unlimited. Since the Government does not
recognize their own power have borders, then we can consider that their
responsibilities are no borders. Conversely, you asked me to have the boundary of
accountability, I ask you to have the power of the border.
Advantage of the low human
"South Wind": Talking about the rise of China, often referred to
when the school officials and businessmen, "the advantage." A
few years ago, you spoke about China's economic growth "false
theory" and "collapse theory" is not right, and that
such growth is neither "government success", nor
"market success", even with the so-called "market,
the government of double success "irrelevant, while eyeing the"
low        human       superiority.      "       How        to      treat     this
"advantage" and open relationship?
Qin Hui: the period in isolation, not allowed to bring the performance practice of
bargaining, as the pre-reform China and North Korea today. But open the door, it
really can be the era of globalization with the "low human
superiority." Many will come to invest, and you will sell products at
reduced prices. However, this has also brought economic benefits on the issue, not
only for Chinese people to pay for the cost of sweatshops, but also for foreign people
to pay the price, because it also means that you will bring down other
people's labor unions, and to the welfare of others reduced. In order to
compete, foreign capital had to do the same, so there will be a "capital of
escape" phenomenon, trade unions wither away, and well-being yellow, the
entire 100 years of labor-management balance is broken, and others have exacerbated
the social contradictions . Some foreign capital in order to avoid the pressure of their
own democratic socialism, trade unions and welfare to escape the pressure, the flow
of the developing countries like China.
"South Wind": So, in France, Sarkozy appeared nearly so
dramatic, "both cut benefits and reduce the freedom" of the
president. Some Western countries in the "China factor" or
before a new round of globalization has somewhat dilemma.
Qin Hui: So the above so-called "transaction cost" theory not
only to pit the people, and pit the past century of human civilization, let the world
back to the era of primitive accumulation. So I say, apart from low-wage, low benefits
of traditional strength, China is more to the "low human rights"
of the "advantage" artificially low labor, land, capital and
non-renewable resource prices to not allow bargaining, the right to restrict or even
cancel many transactions approach "to reduce transaction costs"
to suppress participation, ignoring thought, conscience and justice, to encourage
people to stimulate young minds focused on the energy of a mirage-like pursuit of
wealth alone the impulse to show whether the State or the welfare state, free markets
are       rare      amazing       competitiveness       and       make        either      a
"progressive" is still "shock therapy" of
the democratic transition countries are lagging far behind.
Of course, if not open, this impulse will not have much capability. After opening up,
China's         current     system   to     some      extent     eliminates     the
"democratic separation in big trouble, the burden of the welfare state more
than scare away investors, trade unions, farmers will drive away customers
enclosure" and "drag", they are in an unprecedented
rapid of primitive accumulation. The crisis caused in this way, they rely on external
resources (capital inflows, commodity output) of the gain relief same time, through
globalization and the crisis in the external dilution, the result is the factors of capital
flow and commodity flow in a free country break the existing balance of power,
intensified labor conflict, immigration in a welfare state exacerbated the conflict, in
which the two countries have intensified the plight of employment and public
Perhaps, the Chinese miracle that only such an interpretation could be substantiated.
As to "the advantage", issued after more than a place, and
Africa have, but not as successful in China. Abolition of apartheid in South Africa, the
economic "competitiveness" is dropped, but the so-called down,
not really behind than the original, but in the context of globalization, can no longer
primitive accumulation as in the past has compared to civilized nations "
Low human advantage. " Of course, if South Africa has always been a
closed country, that it would not be the last "miracle", and now
may not be worse than in the past. Only in an open world, able to approach the past in
exchange for a new approach might not make the original so much money.
"South Wind": the world's capital flows to low-lying
land rights for the trend of greater value is undeniable, so Zhang Wuchang, said
"China than the United States free."
Qin Hui: This is his last year in December to commemorate the meeting in Friedman
said. Zhang Wuchang standing position of criticizing the United States of Europe, and
China's position on standing curse the United States, the European study
concluded that the United States, the United States learn Chinese.
"Bargaining" rights and responsibilities
"South Wind": to allow people to fully bargain, not only focus
on immediate benefits, but also, objectively, could lead to some interest groups as
non-lucrative sites to opt out. In other words, increased bargaining power will form a
new exit mechanism.
Qin Hui: The best way out is the people and Government of conditional bargaining,
which allow the Government to admit that they do, what can not. When the
government for their own profit, something would fail, as people do not shirk away
from democratic politics be far away. If the power of unlimited liability and no, you
can imagine, who would not easily give up this "transaction".
Big Task official power who do not want to do? Who rob them, and who I was
Interestingly, before the Polish Solidarity trade union in power, they always ask the
Government to their lowest price of meat, do not criticize the government. In the eyes
of some, the Polish Solidarity trade union is the most reactionary forces, because the
"imposition" of the government a lot of responsibility. When the
Solidarity govern themselves, and put a lot of responsibility removed, prices are rising.
But people not say anything, because the government is what we choose.
Poland is not without its Stalinist, but people did not cast its votes. Elections also been
argued that, you let me centralization, I give you cheap meat, but you did not cast its
votes, so you have nothing to say. So I think that political reform is to establish a
mechanism for bargaining. Political reform does not necessarily lead to laissez-faire
government or the welfare state, welfare and laissez-faire is optional. But it is bound
to lead to a corresponding powers and responsibilities of government. Greater
responsibility, give me more power, or vice versa, people can choose between the two.
"South Wind": social progress in the bargain. 30 years,
China's economic and social achievements have not only accompanied by
changes in the Chinese values, but also to some extent witnessed the Chinese society
with the Government's "bargaining power" of
Qin Hui: accountability, such as the Wenchuan earthquake disaster relief if the
Government does not, before (for example, during the Tangshan earthquake) could
not be blamed, or even do not know what happened, and now this responsibility is
clearly not the last round . Similarly, including the introduction of minimum income
for social security law continued to promote the results. But bargain now are not
doing enough. Moreover, the academic left, right-wing government departments also
continue to digestion social pressure. Right about these benefits should not be
required, the Government need not assume these responsibilities; left in that power
should not be restricted, government power should be more ... ... If the Left kept on
government accountability, limited government the right to keep right The
Government will have the momentum of reform, China will become increasingly
progressive, the more there is hope. If, by contrast, left for expansion of power, right
for shirking responsibility, of course, more and more do not want to reform
government, and feel better. Social advancement, social progress, inevitably some
people pull the hind legs. Nevertheless, 30 years, the fact that China's
overall progress is undeniable.

Shared By: