From: tianshan@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tianshan Hu)
Subject: Re: Why mainlanders are so mixed up?
Summary: Re
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 07:29:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.174028.12849@netcom.com>, jch@netcom.com (Jack Hwang) writes:
> In article <1993Jan19.221909.16725@athena.mit.edu> joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan19.175944.23024@netcom.com> jch@netcom.com (Jack Hwang) writes:
> >>For market distortion, it is apparent since these "purchasing power" are
> >>due to the planned economics.  
> >
> >The number of items whose price is state controlled has decreased from
> >several hundred in 1980 to about 20 today.  Even those controls
> >(mostly on raw materials such as coal and iron) are scheduled to be
> >lifted in the next two or three years.  
> 
> I am not talking about raw materials.  I am talking about liveing expenses
> such as rentals, transportations, and foods.  You can't deny that they are
> still under the control.  Given the demands for houses in cities, if it
> were a free market, the rentals would truely reflect demands and you will
> definitely loose your "purchasing power".   For foods, farmers are stripped
> off the incomes they deserved to keep the consumer price low.  Maybe it
> is good for the teacher in the example, but definitely not good for all
> these labor class. 
> 
> Maybe you would argue that some kind of control is still good.  I really
> don't know.  Maybe a teacher in Beijing is better off than a teacher in
> Taipei according this "purchasing power", but how about the 80% of Chinese
> who are still farmers in rural areas?
> 
> Jack
>
Dear Jack, May I tell you my felling towards your arguments:
1) The definitions in your stories are annoyinglly unclear. Just look
over your statements above; What are your definitions for the words
`rentals', 'transpotations' and `foods'? I guess you mean house
rentals by your 'rentals'; and, if this is true,  you can't deny that 
they are not under strictly control. People do have freedom to lease
their houses to other people in China. I am not sure if the eatible
things sold by resterants are in your definition of 'foods'. Again, if
they are, your conclusion that they are 'under control' is also 
largely unjustifiable. Do factary workers fit into your definition of 
'labor class'? If they do, your conclusion that are worse off due to 
artificially low price for farm goods can be in jarpardy as well.
The thing you have tried to defend vigorously is seemingly related to
'purchasing power' in defferent regions. (sorry, I am so slow as
unable to catch up with you) I still do not get your meaning of 
'purchasing power'. One  thing is clear: the purchasing power in a
region is pertinent to the nominal income and the commercial system
of that region. It could be foolish to  stare only at nominal income
while talking about purchasing power. This is a point made by Joseph
with whom you exchanges words.
2) You would jump up a conclusion yourself and then argue with it.
For instance, you states ' Maybe a teacher in Beijing is better off 
than a teacher  in Taipei according this "purchasing power", but how
about the 80% of Chinese who are still farmers in rural areas?'. I
don't think Joseph ever mentioned a teacher in Beiging is better off
than that in Taipei. However, I certainly appreciate your  creativity
,and even better, your arbilitiy to argue automatically with your
creature. You must have enjoyed this a long time. Most people couldn't
do this. What a pity! Isn't it?
3) I would classify you work as a) seemingly strong like an ox. (look
at  those 'definitely's you used and those well selected counter-
questioniers). b) extrordinarily vague (Not ordinary since you don't
share the common definitions) c) logically discontinuous (come up a
conclusions without reasoning. It is observable that you would use
your conlusion in 3 ways: i) give it to another person if it is bad;
ii) argue with it so that you truelly find something unforgavible and
thus fell good all the time. iii) (I wonder if you really want to know        the 3rd).
It is obvious that you utilized your conclusions wisely. Things could
be improved if you jump out of the well you are in and see to yourself        if the sky is just as big as well. Moreover, you may also hear more
completely what the others are saying. The voice may be distorted
when it goes through the entrance of a well after all.
Happy New Year to you.



 in
    29  > Taipei according this "purchasing power", but how about the 80% of C
hinese
        

Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan