Chinese Artist Ai Weiwei and His Take on Modern China

In the linked video, Ai Weiwei says that "China cannot offer any real value to the world except for cheap labor, manufacture, and it's own so-called stability."  Furthermore he comments that "life is never guaranteed to be safe." This is a very interesting take on China, one many political figures in the Chinese ruling party object to. I recommend this video interview from the UK's The Guardian newspaper.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2010/mar/18/ai-weiwei-turbine-hall-tate

Another article where he equates China to the Middle Ages.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/apr/11/ai-weiwei-china-last-interview

China's Economy Is Growing, But is it Sustainable?

NPR's Planet Money travels to China for an in-depth investigation into China's economy. It's a fascinating debate, are the Chinese building too fast, or are they potentially adding substantial debt in the current all to be counteracted by a future benefit of the Chinese economic machine?

Take a listen:

Government and The People In It

I just had a great conversation with one of my friends about the future of China and the United States. Something I find very interesting and have had with many people in the past. In our conversation today, he mentioned something that struck me as quite interesting. How he loves the policy of the government in China, but hates the government itself. This struck me as odd, how could one love and hate essentially the same thing? But what he described as the difference is important. Many of the policies in China are things he believes are necessary for China's future and current stability, while those who carry out these policies at the middle levels are corrupted by the need to achieve and because they need the benefits of their corruption to survive. He pointed to the point that the President of China, Hu, is not corrupt, but those at the middle level in the party can be due to their use of power as party officials, but not their lack of absolute power such as that of the party leader leaves them somewhat limited in ways. This advantage of being a party official can make themselves a cut above the nonofficial population, but still, does not always give them the ability to live a lifestyle appropriate for that position. It is essentially a system that encourages and promotes this incentive to corruption, most likely inadvertently.

Then I thought about our current political climate here in the United States. What makes this interesting to me is how we associate ourselves with politicians here in the United States. When we vote for a candidate here in the U.S. are we voting for the person or what their policy is? Last night in South Carolina, a traditionally conservative and Christian dominated state, Newt Gingrich won the Republican Primary. This is despite the negatives and blemishes of his past years and multiple transgressions of infidelity. Or the recent weeks exposure of his desire for an "open" marriage as described by his former wife. Is this the case that we love the policy of our politicians but disapprove of them as human beings? If that is true, then what are we to call a leader? A policy maker and their personal life aside, or should they be blended together when this spotlight position is taken?  At some point, we need a balance between good policy and strong personal leadership attributes of a politician right? Or have we just come to accept that politicians are all corrupt at some level and what we have left is to just rely on the policy they promote? Does it really make a difference if the man vying for President of the United States have a transitionally considered good character as a husband and how he would lead the United States through an economic recovery? Thomas Jefferson wrote in our constitution "all men are created equal" but even he had slaves within his household. He was considered one of the best politicians of all time, at least in western culture. Is character and the person themselves different from the policy they promote? Has this always been the same way? Good leaders to me are both good policy makers and those who lead people in their nation based on their own personal integrity. It is hypocritical to me to call on others to be better people when you yourself can't follow your own preaches. Maybe thats why we are where we are...  

China's New Labor Force: Robots

China's largest individual employer, other than the People's Liberation Army has unveiled a new plan to replace huge amounts of human labor with robots. The plan will take action over the next few years and be at a general completion around 2013. The company which I am referring to is Foxconn, a company initially hailed for its ability to hire mass amounts of workers and produce electronics for some of the worlds largest clients, including Apple Inc. Recently the company has been plagued by worker suicides, in which the latest was a 21-year old who threw himself off a building in July. Additionally a major explosion happened at a new factory in Chengdu which killed three more employees. (Click here for more info on Foxconn)


Foxconn has responded to their more than 1 million workers by raising wages, improving conditions at their facilities, providing counseling, and installing nets to catch those jumping out of windows. Of course these have raised costs at the factories and for a company that prides itself on producing components for the worlds leading tech companies at the lowest possible cost, they are looking for alternatives. That is where robots will come in.

Foxconn's CEO Terry Gou said that the more than 1 million workers will be moved “higher up the value chain beyond basic manufacturing work” and of its “desire to move workers from more routine tasks to more value-added positions in manufacturing such as research and development, innovation and other areas that are equally important to the success of our operations.” 


To me, this presents a brave new world for China. Of course this is not the first time robots are being used in the factory process, but when a company as massive as Foxconn decides to transfer human worker hours into machines, jobs will inevitably be lost. China becoming more an more like a capitalist nation under communist rule, needs consumers to grow. If work has already been strained as well as a major division between the rural and urban lifestyles, how will China look like if their massive population cannot find work? China's heart is manufacturing in this modern economy, if manufacturing money comes in from foreign nations, but only sits in the hands of the company/government, what will this mean for the people of China? 


For more information about Foxconn's move into robotic labor, follow this link to The Economist.