Road to riches ends for 20 million Chinese poor

[girl gone mad]

JING SHI, China (CNN) -- Tang Hui and his family prospered as migrant workers during China's economic boom, earning $10,000 a year: enough to build a house, send a cousin to school and pay for his grandmother's medical bills.

But those good days are over. The family's cash earnings have evaporated, snatched away by a manufacturing crash cascading across China caused by falling global demand for its goods.

The nine people in the Tang family are facing an income of zero; their best hope to survive is to grow rice and raise pigs at home in the Sichuan Mountains.

"Farming is really hard. It needs a lot of hard labor," says 22-year-old Tang Hui, who lost his manufacturing job four months ago. "None of the young people want to farm nowadays. The income is extremely low."

A Chinese proverb says: "Going on the road to Sichuan is as hard as going to heaven." Isolated and mountainous, Sichuan is China's third most populous province; 60 percent of its 87 million residents are poor and live in the countryside, authorities say.

It became the nation's biggest source of the 130 million farmers who migrated into Chinese cities, especially in the south, to provide cheap labor for factories that churned out products, mainly for export to the United States. The province was also rocked last May by a massive earthquake that killed tens of thousands of people.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/20/china.economy.family/index.html

[sandnsea]

1. That's just a right wing talking point

How can you post this in one second, and then tell me that the possibility of economic collapse is a right wing talking point in the next second.

[girl gone mad]

2. I have no clue what you're talking about.

The idea that "nationalization" will be unacceptable to Americans and make them go crazy with rage is a right wing talking point. The idea that nationalization will cause a collapse is just ridiculous. We already have a system where banks are being propped up by the government, with no strings attached. Nationalization just adds strings.

[sandnsea]

3. I didn't say crazy with rage

And I didn't say it would cause a collapse.

I said it would cause people in this country to freak out, pee down the leg panic, because there is no history of government control. Because of that, nationalization of the banks would mean we were already at collapse, nobody would intentionally cause that kind of panic unless there were no other choice.

They can add lots of strings without nationalization, they've already started.

You can't seriously believe this is just a little 6 month blip in the economy after the article you just posted, can you?

[girl gone mad]

4. Adding the strings is nationalization.

Call it something else if it makes you feel better.

I never said anything about a 6 month blip, I have no idea where you are getting that from.

[sandnsea]

5. No, it's called rationalization

That nationalization is just a few oversight strings. Nationalization is government ownership of the banks because the banks are flat-ass broke. Don't kid yourself and don't kid other people. This is too serious for games from the right or the left.

[girl gone mad]

6. So you admit that the banks are insolvent, but you're against nationalization?

Where's the logic in that?

What's your solution?

[sandnsea]

7. If they nationalize, then yes the banks are insolvent

See? Which means the country is flat broke. Right?

Try to get the economy moving again to fill some of the loss. Build a green economy to take the place of the mortgage collapse. Let the stocks start moving back up, let those with 401K's relax a bit, build some jobs, settle the housing market out. Inch our way out.

Bust the system flat?? No, not a good idea.

If they nationalize Citi and BofA, we are fucked as a country for a long long time.

[girl gone mad]

8. Then you think we should let Citi and BofA go bankrupt?

We can't replace the debt bubble with a green economy bubble. It's simply impossible.

[sandnsea]

9. I didn't say either thing

I don't know why people like you think it's cute to play these either/or games and then blast Republicans for doing the same damn thing. Grow Up.

You try to slow down the unraveling while you build a normal green energy economy and stabilize the housing market. It won't be the same as the previous bubble, but it will be enough for every day people to live normally.

[girl gone mad]

10. You are talking in circles.

Our two biggest banks are insolvent. The situation requires immediate action. Sitting on our hands hoping that the green economy gets moving and the housing market turns around (unlikely in the face of ongoing job losses) isn't a reasonable solution.

[sandnsea]

11. No, you are talking in circles

As are a lot of people who believe their utopian dream of government owned finances and the end of capitalism is coming to fruition.

Let me make this crystal clear - If They MUST Nationalize The Banks, it will not be a reasonable solution, it will be a signal that our entire economy has collapsed. Did you read Soros? Like the demise of the Soviet Union, that's what he said. You were in the thread with the Volcker post, worse than the Depression. Get it yet? It's not just me saying this.

Nobody is saying sit on our hands either. Why do you do that? Do you do that to your family? If you do, stop it. It's dysfunctional and hateful.

The best chance we have is to turn the job market around to turn the housing market around. And the best chance to do that is with a new green & alternative energy economy. In fact, that is the only solution and the path we are on. The only question is will we be able to get our feet under us before complete economic collapse, or are we really going to have to build up from absolute zero.

[girl gone mad]

12. Volcker is for nationalization..

and he says capitalism will survive.

You don't seem to have a reasonable solution to dealing with the imminent demise of the banks. Letting them go under while we wait for the green economy to solve all of our woes is not a solution. It would create widespread havoc.

[sandnsea]

13. No he's not

Just because he's predicting it will happen, doesn't mean he's for it.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hm7dNzE_tRw1El5sdgxuRbnEHEowD96FJPN00

And again, after who knows how many times, nobody is saying to do nothing and I really don't know what thrill you get out of pretending you have an argument based on lying about what someone else is saying.

[girl gone mad]

14. Volcker is for the Swedish model, Geithner and Summers against (up to this point).

That's how the debate is going at Treasury.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Buy-American-Why-Obama-should/story.aspx?guid={C169F09C-C17B-4EFC-BB29-F46E48C2116C}&print=true&dist=printMidSection

It's possible, maybe likely, that Citi will be nationalized by Sunday night, whether it's called that or not.

It would be good if the administration could do what's necessary without ill-informed hysterics coming from the peanut gallery.

[sandnsea]

15. Thanks for the post from the peanut gallery

I had already read that. It does not say Volcker is for nationalizing the banks.

Making a bank accountable if they are going to get more money - is not the same thing as nationalizing no matter how you want to twist it that way.

I hope they do what is best for the country too, without ill-informed dither from the anarchists.