quote:China’s Hong Kong Mistake
In the summer of 1996, the Chinese Communist Party erected a giant digital clock, fifty feet tall and thirty feet long, beside Tiananmen Square, which counted down the seconds until, as it said in large characters across the top, “The Chinese Government Regains Sovereignty Over Hong Kong.” After a century and a half under British colonial rule, Hong Kong’s restoration, in 1997, was a hugely symbolic moment for China’s national identity, an end to a history of invasion in which, as the Chinese put it, their land was “cut up like a melon” by foreign powers.
Under a deal brokered with the British, China agreed not to alter Hong Kong’s internationalized way of life—including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and other political rights not permitted on the mainland—for half a century. The theory was that, as mainland China continued to climb out of the poverty and political instability of the past, its leaders would gradually allow more political openness on the mainland. After a half century, or so the thinking went, the gap between the mainland and its reunited territory would have narrowed so much that they could mesh without much difficulty.
But, after nearly two decades, things are turning out differently. On Sunday, the Beijing government rejected demands for free, open elections for Hong Kong’s next chief executive, in 2017, enraging protesters who had called for broad rights to nominate candidates. China’s National People’s Congress announced a plan by which nominees must be vetted and approved by more than fifty per cent of a committee that is likely to be stacked with those who heed Beijing’s wishes. If that plan comes to pass, opposition figures who favor more democracy have little chance of making it onto the ballot. (As Boss Tweed liked to say, “I don’t care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating.”)
The crisis, which will likely grow, is proving to be a test not only of Hong Kong’s political culture but also of which political ethic will prevail across China in the years ahead: globalism or nationalism, two fundamentally different conceptions of how China will relate to the rest of the world. Hong Kong takes pride in its role as Asia’s original global city, a cultural and political mashup with a raucous, multilingual press corps and hot and noisy local politics—a largely borderless world of money, people, and ideas. Its courts rely on English common law, which is, in theory, free from political influence.
But, on the mainland, even as China’s economy has continued to grow and its population has become more integrated with the world, leaders have set new limits on political liberalization. They have concluded that greater democracy would threaten political stability and sovereignty, and they believe that China must instead adhere to its own centralized, one-party model. Last summer, as the scholar Sebastian Veg described, the Party circulated an internal directive to members that singled out seven “do not mention” topics: “democracy, universal values, civil society, market liberalism, media independence, criticizing errors in the history of the Party (‘historical nihilism’), and questioning the policy of opening up and reforms and the socialist nature of the regime.”
Hong Kong’s growing activist network, known as Occupy Central (named after the city’s downtown) has increasingly alarmed leaders in Beijing, and they now describe the activism as a brush fire that could sweep over the mainland. In a piece published on Saturday, the People’s Daily, the Communist Party mouthpiece, hinted about foreign agitators “attempting to turn Hong Kong into a bridgehead for subverting and infiltrating the Chinese mainland. This can absolutely not be permitted.”
In theory, China’s President, Xi Jinping, could have sought a middle road that would have opened up the nominating process enough to produce a competitive election. But, when the protests began earlier this year, Beijing worried that backing down would embolden further acts of resistance, not only in Hong Kong but also on the mainland. “If we yield because some people threaten to commence radical, illegal activities, it would only result in more, bigger illegal activities,” Li Fei, a mainland official, told Hong Kong lawmakers.
That is a strategy that points toward confrontation. Beijing chose the safer, short-term solution, but it left in place the ingredients for growing tension. Benny Tai, a law professor and opposition leader, said that the announcement opened a new “era of resistance.” “Today is not only the darkest day in the history of Hong Kong’s democratic development,” he told reporters. “Today is also the darkest day of one country, two systems,” a reference to the relationship between Hong Kong and the government in Beijing.
The most important questions are now up to the opposition: How far will pro-democracy activists go? Historically, Hong Kong’s political culture is loud and demonstrative, but not violent. The protesters have vowed to block Hong Kong’s financial district, in order to bring it to a standstill. But will it be a symbolic effort or a functional attempt to force a confrontation?
In turn, how will the Beijing-backed local government respond? Not long ago, it would have been unthinkable to imagine People’s Liberation Army vehicles on the streets of Hong Kong, but in the past quarter century the Party has shown that it is prepared to take whatever steps it deems necessary to tamp down public protests. On Sunday, hundreds of local police, and dozens of their vehicles, were arrayed around Hong Kong’s government headquarters. Last week, at least four P.L.A. armored personnel carriers were spotted in the streets.
Most important, if the confrontation becomes more acute, how will Hong Kong’s largely moderate middle class respond? So far, it has provided ambivalent support for the Occupy Central movement, fearing that unrest, even for popular ideas, could undermine the city’s business climate or invite harsher measures from Beijing. But how many of Hong Kong’s citizens will see a show of force as a reason to back down, and how many will see it as a reason to join the more radical pro-democracy camp?
The struggle over political values at the center of this crisis runs much deeper than the technical debate over Hong Kong’s elections. It is likely to get worse before it gets better. In a statement on Sunday, the Occupy Central activists described a sense of desperation, a belief that “all chances of dialogue have been exhausted and the occupation of Central will definitely happen.” It did not say when that occupation will begin.
quote:Hong Kong clashes kick-start plans by pro-democracy activists to blockade city
Tens of thousands join mass civil disobedience over voting rights following violent clashes between police and students
Hong Kong activists have kicked off a mass civil disobedience campaign over voting rights early, after tens of thousands of students and sympathisers pre-empted them with protests at government buildings on Saturday.
Clashes with police and the arrest of several student leaders had brought supporters onto the streets after around 150 demonstrators broke through police lines and stormed the city headquarters late on Friday night, prompting 74 arrests. Three well-known activists were still being held on Sunday morning.
Police used pepper spray as they struggled to clear demonstrators from the scene overnight. But late on Saturday, large crowds gathered around the complex to support the student protesters, who had been boycotting classes all week.
“Occupy Central starts now,” the movement’s leader Benny Tai announced in the early hours of Sunday morning – not long after saying there would be no change in plans for the non-violent protest movement.
“Actually we are being encouraged by the students to join. We are touched by the works of students. I will even admit that we are late [in announcing]; we should be ashamed of ourselves,” he added.
The former British colony is run separately from the mainland under the “one country, two systems” framework. Beijing promised universal suffrage for the election of its chief executive from 2017.
But reformers are angered by the restrictions imposed on the process, which would see tight control of candidates by a nomination committee stacked with pro-Beijing loyalists. It would effectively rule out the prospect of any democrat standing.
They had hoped that the threat of action might persuade Beijing to compromise.
Instead, the details of the decision from the standing committee of the National People’s Congress – China’s largely rubber-stamp parliament – underlined their fears that Hong Kong’s identity and autonomy is being gradually eroded.
Occupy Central With Peace and Love had originally planned to take over the financial district from Wednesday, a national holiday.
In a statement, Occupy Central said: “The two nights of occupation of Civic Square in Admiralty [next to Central] have completely embodied the awakening of Hong Kong people’s desire to decide their own lives. The courage of the students and members of the public in their spontaneous decision stay has touched many Hong Kong people. Yet, the government has remained unmoved … We have decided to arise and act.
“We reiterate we will stand firm in our belief in peace and non-violence. We urge Hong Kong people to respond to the call of history, to stand up and have the courage to be a real Hong Kong citizen.”
Its demands are to withdraw Beijing’s decision on the framework for Hong Kong’s political reform, and a resumption of political reform consultations.
Media outlets have reported that many of those outside the government headquarters left the scene after Occupy Central’s statement, although more than 1,000 remained there overnight as hundreds of police officers watched.
They rearranged crowd-control barriers brought by police to defend their position, and slept swathed in plastic wrap and cheap raincoats, wearing goggles and masks, to protect against pepper spray.
“A lot of students left as soon as Occupy made the announcement they were starting their occupation,” Vito Leung, a recent graduate, said.
“I think they were really forcing it. This was always a separate student movement with similar goals but different directions. I don’t think it should be brought together like this,” added Leung, vowing to stay until police released Joshua Wong, the prominent 17-year-old leader of the activist group Scholarism.
He was among the first to be arrested as protestors charged the government complex on Friday night, and was still being detained early on Sunday, along with fellow student leaders Alex Chow and Lester Shum. His parents said in a statement that his detention was an act of “political persecution”.
Civic party leader Alan Leong told the South China Morning Post that 18 pan-democrat lawmakers, including himself, would take part in the sit-in. He added: “[Some protesters] may not want to support Occupy and have left, but all Hong Kongers who want their attitude known to the Communist party [should come] because this is a defining moment of Hong Kong.”
Publishing tycoon Jimmy Lai, an outspoken critic of Beijing and backer of democracy activists, said: “Whoever loves Hong Kong should come and join us. This is for Hong Kong’s future.”
Police have urged the protesters to leave peacefully and avoid obstructing officers, saying otherwise they would “soon take actions to restore public order”.
At least 34 people have been injured since the protest began, including four police officers and 11 government staff and guards, authorities said. One officer suffered a gash after being poked by an umbrella used to deflect pepper spray.
quote:
quote:De leider van Hong Kong, Leung Chun-ying, heeft vandaag aangekondigd dat de regering een nieuwe ronde van overleg zal voeren over de hervorming van het kiesstelsel. De aankondiging volgt na een weekend van gewelddadige gevechten tussen de politie en studenten die pleiten voor meer vrijheden en democratie.
"Hit with one hand, pet with the other."quote:Leung heeft mensen opgeroepen om niet deel te nemen aan de 'illegale protesten' en het gebied rondom het regeringsgebouw zo snel mogelijk te verlaten.
Ok, en wat doe jij zoal ?quote:Op maandag 29 september 2014 19:53 schreef controlaltdelete het volgende:
Chaos In Hong Kong! TEAR GAS, RUBBER BULLETS, RIOT POLICE! 'Occupy Central Hong Kong' Protests China
zelfs in China- Hong Kong hebben mensen ook al door dat ze belazerd worden en gaan de straat op. Maar de Nederlander doet liever niks en kijkt ondertussen naar Boer zoekt Vrw ofzo.
Wat heerlijk , een volk met ruggengraatquote:Op maandag 29 september 2014 19:53 schreef controlaltdelete het volgende:
Chaos In Hong Kong! TEAR GAS, RUBBER BULLETS, RIOT POLICE! 'Occupy Central Hong Kong' Protests China
zelfs in China- Hong Kong hebben mensen ook al door dat ze belazerd worden en gaan de straat op. Maar de Nederlander doet liever niks en kijkt ondertussen naar Boer zoekt Vrw ofzo.
quote:Tens of thousands in Hong Kong are spending the night occupying a major highway, demanding free and fair elections independent of Beijing's influence. Beijing has responded with militarized police, and is censoring photos of the protests on social media.
quote:Zwitserse bank: rijken boeren goed bij crisis
Terwijl de economie doorkwakkelt en experts waarschuwen voor een nieuwe recessie, bereikte de wereldwijde rijkdom in 2014 recordhoogtes - ook in Europa. Dat meldt de Zwitserse bank Credit Suisse in haar 'Global Wealth Report', dat dit jaar extra aandacht besteed aan economische ongelijkheid.
quote:Aan de toegenomen vermogens ligt een spectaculaire groei van de aandelenmarkt ten grondslag: in Europa groeide de totale beurswaarde van aandelen met 30 procent, in Noord-Amerika met 22,6 procent. Dit verklaart ook waarom de vermogensgroei in de rijke landen zo uit de pas loopt met hun economische prestaties: het geld dat door verschillende stimuleringsmaatregelen in de kapitaalmarkten is gepompt, heeft zijn weg nauwelijks naar de rest van de economie gevonden.
quote:In deze situatie lijkt ook de wereldwijde vermogensongelijkheid toe te nemen. Met een verwijzing naar de Franse econoom Thomas Piketty, die het onderwerp op de kaart zette, nam Credit Suisse hierover een speciaal hoofdstuk op in het rapport. Het blijkt dat, terwijl de gemiddelde rijkdom sinds het begin van de crisis in 2008 is toegenomen, het mediaan vermogen - het vermogen van 's werelds 'Jan Modaal' - juist is gedaald. Dit is een teken van toenemende ongelijkheid.
Credit Suisse constateert dat de vermogensongelijkheid - die wereldwijd veel groter is dan de inkomensongelijkheid - juist in de rijkere delen van de wereld flink is toegenomen. Opmerkelijk is dat China, ondanks de groeiende hoeveelheid miljonairs in het land, voor westerse begrippen geen hoge vermogensongelijkheid kent.
Dit is gewoon triest, de wereld is op een punt dat het nog nooit zo rijk is geweest...quote:
Plutonomy.quote:
quote:The Citigroup Plutonomy Memos: Two bombshell documents that Citigroup's lawyers try to suppress, describing in detail the rule of the first 1%
"Are they real?" That's the question people usually ask when they hear for the first time of the "Citigroup Plutonomy Memos." The sad truth is: Yes, they are real, and instead of being discussed on mainstream media outlets all over America and beyond, Citigroup was surprisingly successful so far in suppressing these memos, using their lawyers to issue takedown-notices whenever these memos were being made available for download on the internet.
So what are we talking about? In 2005 and 2006, several analysts at Citigroup took a very, very close look at the economic inequalities within the USA and other countries and wrote two memos which were addressed to their very wealthy customers. If there is one group of people who need to know the truth about what is really going on within the society and the economy, minus the propaganda, then it's businesspeople who have a lot of money to invest, and who want to invest wisely.
quote:At the beginning of the first memo "Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances", the analysts introduce the subject:
Little of this note should tally with conventional thinking. Indeed, traditional thinking is likely to have issues with most of it. We will posit that:
1) the world is dividing into two blocs - the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest.
Plutonomies have occurred before in sixteenth century Spain, in seventeenth century Holland, the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties in the U.S. What are the common drivers of Plutonomy?
Disruptive technology-driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation, capitalist- friendly cooperative governments, an international dimension of immigrants and overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation, the rule of law, and patenting inventions. Often these wealth waves involve great complexity, exploited best by the rich and educated of the time.
2) We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more income inequality, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and globalization.
quote:Citigroup explains how the "non-rich" consumers become increasingly irrelevant within the "plutonomies":
4) In a plutonomy there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or “the UK consumer”, or indeed the “Russian consumer”. There are rich consumers, few in
number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.
There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie. Consensus analyses that do not tease out the profound impact of the plutonomy on spending power, debt loads, savings rates (and hence current account deficits), oil price impacts etc, i.e., focus on the “average”consumer are flawed from the start. It is easy to drown in a lake with an average depth of 4 feet, if one steps into its deeper extremes. Since consumption accounts for 65% of the world economy, and consumer staples and discretionary sectors for 19.8% of the MSCI AC World Index, understanding how the plutonomy impacts consumption is key for equity market participants.
quote:The analysts of Citigroup then invent a new term - "The New Managerial Aristocracy":
THE UNITED STATES PLUTONOMY - THE GILDED AGE, THE ROARING TWENTIES, AND THE NEW MANAGERIAL ARISTOCRACY
Let’s dive into some of the details. As Figure 1 shows the top 1% of households in the U.S., (about 1 million households) accounted for about 20% of overall U.S. income in 2000, slightly smaller than the share of income of the bottom 60% of households put together. That’s about 1 million households compared with 60 million households, both with similar slices of the income pie!
Clearly, the analysis of the top 1% of U.S. households is paramount. The usual analysis of the “average” U.S. consumer is flawed from the start. To continue with the U.S., the top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better(or worse, depending on your political stripe) - the top 1% of households account for 40% of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together.
Let wel: deze notes zijn geschreven in 2005/2006. Notes zijn hier te downloaden:quote:While I researched the subject, I discovered that there also exists an additional third, shorter Citigroup memo, dated September 29, 2006, which is being mentioned here.
The summary on the first page of this memo, which another report for their super-wealthy investors, boldly presents "Plutonomy" not only as a fact, but a business great business opportunity:
The Global Investigator
The Plutonomy Symposium — Rising Tides
Lifting Yachts
➤ Time to re-commit to plutonomy stocks – Binge on Bling.
Equity multiples appear too low, the profit share of GDP is high and likely going higher, stocks look likely to beat housing, and we are bullish on equities. The Uber-rich, the plutonomists, are likely to see net worth-income ratios surge, driving luxury consumption.
Buy plutonomy stocks (list inside).
➤ Plutonomy stocks at a premium, but relative pricing power is key.
➤ Our Plutonomy Symposium take-aways.
The key challenge for corporates in this space is to maintain the mystique of prestige while trying to grow revenue and hit the mass-affluent market. Finding pure-plays on the plutonomy theme, however, is tricky.
➤ Plutonomy and the Great Conundrums of our age.
We think the balance sheets of the rich are in great shape, and are likely to continue to improve. Don’t be shocked if the savings rate worsens as equities do well.
➤ What could go wrong?
Beyond war, inflation, the end of the technology/productivity wave, and financial collapse, we think the most potent and short-term threat would be societies demanding a more ‘equitable’ share of wealth.
quote:
quote:Tens of thousands of union members are marching through central London to highlight their calls for pay rises.
Members of Unite, Unison, the National Union of Teachers, Communication Workers Union, the Royal College of Nurses and Equity took to the streets in the capital on Saturday, while other protests were held in Glasgow and Belfast. Pensioners and anti-nuclear activists also took part.
The TUC, which organised the Britain Needs a Pay Rise demonstration to mark the end of industrial action by public sector workers, including nurses, midwives and civil servants, said up to 90,000 people were on the march.
Midwives went on strike for the first time this month to protest against the government’s decision not to pay a recommended 1% increase to all NHS staff. Hospital radiographers and prison officers are due to take action next week.
The TUC said workers were facing a significant squeeze on incomes, with average wages down by £50 a week in real terms since 2007 and 5 million people earning less than the minimum wage.
The TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, said the high turnout sent a strong message to the government that wages needed to rise.
|
Forum Opties | |
---|---|
Forumhop: | |
Hop naar: |