Guest Post: Is The Iron Fist Control Of China’s Central Government Coming Unhinged?

Tyler Durden's picture

Guest Post from History Squared

Is the Iron Fist Control of China’s Central Government Coming Unhinged?

First, what is China’s Central government trying to do? Second, is it working?

The PBOC is worried about asset priced inflation so they’ve attempted
to reign in the credit tsunami they initiated in response to the 2008
economic crises. The outside perception is that if the Chinese
government orders banks to lend, they lend. So if that’s the case, if
the PBOC orders banks to reign in lending out of fear of overheating and
future non performing loans, the banks should stop lending. For the
past few years, the PBOC has established official loan quotas on banks,
but the banks have exceeded the official thresholds each year.
Unofficially, the problem is much worse, as banks have hidden another
30% or so of their loans in off balance sheet transactions, according to
Fitch. Recently, the PBOC officially dropped the loan quota and decided
to focus on the reserve ratio. The loan quotas failed and were not
being obeyed, so issuing guidelines that are inevitably violated would
merely highlight PBOC weakness.

Last week, immediately before President Hsu’s visit to the US, photos
of a Chinese Stealth fighter were released. The timing was viewed as a
way for China to flex its muscles and set the tone for the Obama
meeting. That may have been the case, but on whose orders? Secretary of
Defense Gates spoke with Hsu, who said he knew nothing of the photos.
This sparked alarm from the administration that the leaders of the
Chinese central government do not have control over the military. This
is not the first allegation of lack of oversight. It also shows the
hostility of China’s military leadership towards the US.

Food costs account for 40% of disposable income in China. To control
prices, the central government has placed limits on the number of
purchases on such things as cooking oil. There are rumors the central
government is releasing stockpiles, yet prices continue to rise. China
has 20% of the world’s population, but just 6% of the farmable land. If
the central government begins to implement price controls, shortages are
inevitable. A recent reported from World Economic Forum warned that
shortages could “cause social and political instability, geopolitical
conflict, and irreparable environmental damage.” The central government
seems to have few options to control food inflation without causing a
major disruption in the rest of the economy.

Chinese soldiers and their families are mostly from rural China, the
majority of whom have not benefited from China’s rising economy, with
600 million still earning less than $6 a day. Indeed, in many aspects,
quality of life has deteriorated for those without connections, a
prerequisite for wealth in the eyes of most Chinese according to polls.
Many do not view competition for material goods as healthy, pollution
and waste have worsened exponentially, housing prices have skyrocketed,
and now food prices surging. Businessweek
reported that ordinary Chinese are increasingly yearning for a return
to Mao style communism – “a more equal” society, with Conqing Party Boss
Bo Xilia gaining support and pushing for membership to the inner

To summarize, banks have ignored PBOC orders, the military is doing
their own thing, and food prices are surging with few solutions
available to the central government. They have a fixed asset bubble, a
likely onslaught of bad loans in the offing, and millions of jobs tied
to construction. Many Chinese are worse off and the military is more
sympathetic to ordinary Chinese than the noveau riche. Inflation is
nearing levels associated with social unrest. The situation is a

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Dr. Porkchop's picture

Devil's Advocate: Are America's civilian leaders in full control of their military?

LawsofPhysics's picture

Hey, don't junk porkchop.  A very good question.  Even better, since we only have a volunteer army of around 150,000 (next to a Chinese army of 1,000,000), will it really matter when certain states act in their own best interest and recall their troops.  After they recall those troops they could start printing their own money backed by REAL resources in those states.  - Just saying. 

greengoogol's picture

Given the steady increase of Oath Keeper influence amongst the rank and file troops, I seriously doubt it--unless the civilian leaders suddenly remember THEIR duty to the Constitution . . .

bankonzhongguo's picture

I could almost make an argument that the entire reason for this global financial whateveritis is about inducing runaway inflation into the Chinese Mainland - to break China.

Only within a few circles have I ever heard of "a plan" to destabilize Zhongguo.  Inflation is the only mechanism to otherwise break China into pieces or regional spheres of influence to remake the 3 kingdoms.  Its the grand game of the 21st century - for the last gasp of whithered colonialists to otherwise break China (again).

Instead of opium its Keynesianism

China will always be feudal.  Their veneer of centralism is the backlash to the prior millennia of systemic political culture failings.  Even Kongzi could not clean house.    All those billionaires in Shanghai/Pudong/Shenzhen/Xianggang are tired of standing at attention because some second cousin of some revolutionary farmer from the Black Dragon River walks into a room south of the Chang Jiang once a decade.  Yes the PLA is the glue that keeps the country together, but considering I saw some PLA-N boys strapping Hyundais to the sterns of their submarines for midnight runs across the Yellow Sea to make $1,000 a hop - I say anything goes.  You only have one hometown.

Its no accedente that BOC/US got approval to open RMB accounts in the US prior to Hu coming to Amerika.  More chaos (opportunity) to be shipped to China.

What is that Chinese saying?  'Beware what you wish for.'

Green Leader's picture

I totally agree with you.

Thanks for your detailed post.


1984's picture

Then brace for destabilization everywhere.

Moonrajah's picture

Even Kongzi could not clean house.

Kongzi couldn't, but Ponzi just might.

mikla's picture

Businessweek reported that ordinary Chinese are increasingly yearning for a return to Mao style communism – “a more equal” society, with Conqing Party Boss Bo Xilia gaining support and pushing for membership to the inner circle.

Oh, dear.

That ain't good.

billwilson's picture

A bit of an over reaction re Bo XiLai. In reality he is more a "Mr. Clean" rooting out corruption than an idealogue. That is actually a good thing.

mikla's picture

Ok.  That's better, then.

Large social upheaval can be very bad (Mao killed ~70 - 140 million of his countrymen), or very good (I'm amazed the people in so many countries in Africa suffer their corrupt murdering leadership without uprising).

The uprising in China is inevitable.  The current system in China is heavy-handed stability, but which is now inevitably becoming unstable.  My hope is for a positive changing-of-the-guard, but I'm unsure how to transition gracefully (e.g., how to make an omelet without breaking any eggs).

bingaling's picture

this is from an article from Guardian UK

After winning several key posts, Xi Jinping, 57, is almost certain to take over as China’s president from Hu Jintao in 2012.

A “supreme pragmatist”, Mr Xi devoted himself to Marxist ideology in order to “become redder than the red” and prosper in the Communist system.

The revelations came from the US Embassy in Beijing after an interview with an unnamed professor who was a childhood friend of Mr Xi. The Embassy briefing has now been released by Wikileaks.

Until now, he has remained a deeply mysterious figure. Chinese censors have been careful to delete almost all of his biographical detail from the record, even hushing up his former classmates and professors. No one can even be sure of his political allies within the Communist party.

However, a detailed portrait of Mr Xi has now emerged which shows him to be “exceptionally ambitious” and to have had “his eye on the prize” of becoming China’s leader from “early adulthood”.

One revelation supressed from the official record book until now is that Mr Xi has been married twice.

His first wife was Ke Xiaoming, the daughter of a former Chinese ambassador to the UK, while his second is Peng Liyuan, a famous singer, with whom he has a daughter.

Hopes for greater reform of China’s political system in the next five years are quashed by descriptions of Mr Xi as a true “elitist” who believes that “dedicated and committed Communist Party leadership is the key to enduring social stability and national strength [in China]“.

Mr Xi is what is known in China as a “princeling”, the son of one of the country’s revolutionary heros.

Many of the princelings enjoy enormous privilege in modern China, and are in control of several key industries.

“Having shared a common upbringing with him, the professor said, he is convinced that Xi has a genuine sense of ‘entitlement’, believing that members of his generation are the ‘legitimate heirs’ to the revolutionary achievements of their parents and therefore ‘deserve to rule China’,” the cable revealed.

In a demonstration of sign of his unwavering ambition, however, it appears that Mr Xi joined the Communist party even when his own father was languishing in a Party prison during the Cultural Revolution for alleged political crimes.

The professor said Mr Xi is incorruptible by money, does not drink or do drugs, and that women felt he was “boring”.

Mr Xi was also described as a “good guy” and “not cold-hearted” and is “repulsed” by the prostitution and corruption that are on open display in many Chinese cities. Instead, the professor remarked that Mr Xi was drawn to Buddhism during his early career and had a “seeming belief in supernatural forces”.

Mr Xi is also likely, the US Embassy decided, to be pro-Washington and a relative internationalist. His older sister, Xi An’an, is thought to live in Canada while his younger brother Xi Yuanping, spent time in Hong Kong while it was under British rule.


I dont know if that is the same Xi??

LawsofPhysics's picture

Damn, damn, damn that finite planet!  An opportunity for the U.S. to be great again if the world wants to eat.

Spalding_Smailes's picture



Soros Speaks Of A "Managed" Decline In The Dollar & How China Will Be A Part Of The New World

LawsofPhysics's picture

The word "china", when translated quite literally means "the center of the universe".

SilverRhino's picture

That would be Zhongguo / Chung-Kuo.  "Middle Kingdom" (Central Country)

The word China is a derivative of Cin/Qin (chin) which is Persian.   That was named after the Qin dynasty.  

Han Empire is a little more accurate in terms of what they really are.




wintermute's picture

Apologies Tyler but this widespread error on the web has got my goat.

"rein in" not "reign in" (the latter refers to kingship).

gwar5's picture

It's "rain in" not "rein in" (the latter refers to Santa)

bingaling's picture

They say this in the South with a drawl "its rain'n not rein'n"

FatFingered's picture

Oh, that awful China!  Good thing we pay our corn farmers to waste our cooking oil in the production of ethanol, as reported by ZH yesterday.  God forbid those poor Chinese might want it. I wonder if that wicked Chinese government would choose to starve the world's poor so that their banking buddies could buy more Maseratis?  Whose military is outa contol?!?!?

LawsofPhysics's picture

Spot on, but still a predominantly a volunteer army.  If states exercise their true power they can recall their own at any time.  Moreover they can draft any of their citizens into that army.  Could get interesting should a creative law professor with the "hitler" mindset arise in politics.

Spalding_Smailes's picture

China. Rock. Inflation. Hard place.

Michael Pettis has a blunt way of describing the China predicament, after Friday saw the People’s Bank raise required reserve ratios for the seventh time over the past year, in an effort to rein in inflation and curb lending by the country’s banks.

In a sentence, it’s “damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” The issue, says theShenyin Wanguo Securities analyst and all ’round China expert, is that high or just persistent inflation creates “an almost unsolvable problem for the PBoC.

Here’s why:

On the one hand the PBoC can raise nominal interest rates in tandem with inflation (which they have certainly not done so far) so as to keep real rates unchanged. The problem of course is that raising nominal interest rates – even if real rates are unchanged – is effectively the same as accelerating principal payments, and with many borrowers struggling to generate the cash flows needed to meet interest payments, a significant rise in nominal interest rates could cause a sharp rise in financial distress.

On the other hand the PBoC can repress interest rates further, allowing them to rise much more slowly than inflation, but this would make deposit rates even more negative in real terms than they already, putting more downward pressure on household income as a share of GDP, and with it household consumption. (Given the high level of household savings relative to household income, income on those savings should be a significant part of overall household income). Lower, or negative, real lending rates would also make it even more rational to borrow money and spend it foolishly on increasing capacity, fueling bubbles, or building even more non-economic real estate and infrastructure projects. In that case lower real interest rates means worsening the imbalances in the economy.

So with rising inflation, it is dammed if you do and damned if you don’t, and the fervent discussion within policymaking and analyst circles has not arrived at any resolution. This discussion has, however, generated two claims, one of which is debatable and the other is just plain foolish. The debatable claim is that raising interest rates and reducing lending is one of the ways the PBoC can combat inflation.

We’re going to focus on the ‘foolish claim.’

That’s the notion, Pettis says, that China was able to ‘grow out of’ its last banking crisis (which happened a decade ago) and can therefore do so again.

This is just WRONG! says Pettis, but with less caps and exclamatory marks.

Some 10 years ago, China did suffer a banking crisis, but it did not escape from it unscathed. In fact, China’s crisis was resolved just like all banking crises tend to be resolved — by transferring wealth from households/taxpayers to the banks. For instance, by lowering lending rates to spur investment and help out borrowers.

The problem, though, is that this subtle debt-forgiveness doesn’t come free:

The combination of implicit debt forgiveness and the wide spread between the lending and deposit rate (which adds at least another 100 basis points annual loss to household depositors, and probably more) has been a very large transfer of wealth from household depositors to banks and borrowers. This transfer is, effectively, a hidden tax on household income.

It is not at all surprising, then, that growth in China’s gross domestic product, powered by very cheap lending rates, has substantially exceeded the growth in household income, which was held back by this large hidden tax – and my back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the tax has amounted to at least 5-7% of GDP annually (all the more painful when you consider that in China, household income is only around 50% of GDP). It is also not at all surprising that household consumption has declined over the decade as a share of gross national product from a very low 45% at the beginning of the decade to an astonishingly low 36% last year.

So in the end this is really how China’s banking crisis was resolved. It was not that China managed to grow rapidly and resolve the NPL problem with growth. It is that both China’s rapid growth and its rapidly developing imbalances were at least in part the consequence of polices aimed at resolving the NPLs. The banking crisis did not result in a collapse in the banking system, but it nonetheless came with a heavy cost. The banking crisis in China resulted in a collapse (and there is no other word for it) in household consumption as a share of the economy.

You can see where this is going, then. The worry is that a surge in non-performing loans amongst China’s banks won’t be so easily resolved this time around. Households would have to pick up the tab (once again) leading to even moreimbalances.

PBoC rock — meet hard place.

Spalding_Smailes's picture

Victor Shin ~ ( get ready to pick up more debt ).

1. The Chinese government claims that there is only 6 trillion RMB in local investment vehicle debt.
My response: A. This widely cited figure was produced by a 6/2009 CBRC survey of the situation. The exact methodology is unclear, but informants state that the CBRC extrapolated this amount on the basis of a partial study of a few provinces.
B. Other government agencies have provided conflicting and higher amounts. For example, a MOF research team uncovered "well over 4 trillion" in late 2008 (excellent Credit Swiss research even states that the 4 trillion was a YE 2007 figure).
C. The CBRC finding concerns only bank loans, but total debt should also include bond issuance and accounts payable, which constitute triangular debt.
D. if we sum the gross debt of just the top 50 or so LICs, we quickly arrive at gross debt of over 2 trillion (try adding the gross debt of Guangdong Highway, Guangdong Transportation Group, Chongqing Highway, Beijing Basic Construction, Shanghai Urban Construction and Development Company, Shanghai Pudong Development Co., Tianjin Urban Basic Infrastructure, Binhai Development...etc.), so the remaining 8000 or so entities only owe 4 trillion (on average 500 mln RMB each)?

2. The 11.4 trillion is too high when compared with total bank loans in various categories.
My response: A. First of all, total loans outstanding at the end of 2009 was well over 40 trillion RMB, and I think it is completely reasonable to believe that nearly 1/4 of it was loans to LICs. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that a higher share of bank loans ended up in LICs. 
B. Some analysts have trouble believing that such a high share of medium and long-term loans ended up in LICs. When we consider how many LICs there are and the vital role they play in the local economic strategy, it is not surprising that likely as much as 3/4 of new medium and long term loans in 2009 ended up in LICs. 
C. Beyond medium and long term loans, many LICs are holding companies with subsidiaries engaged in a wide range of businesses. For example, the LICs run thousands of hotels across China, and loans to these hotels would be classified as loans to the service industry. Thus, in addition to medium and long term loans and loans to infrastructure, it is perfectly reasonable for a sizable share of working capital loans, trust loans, and loans in the "other" category to end up in LICs. Again, gross debt of these entities would also include bond issuance and debt owed to each other.

3. LIC debt can be calculated by subtracting government spending on basic infrastructure from the total infrastructure spending figure. In that light, LIC debt only increased by 2.8 trillion RMB in 2009.
My response:
A. First, as pointed out, LIC are diversified holding companies which do not only engage in infrastructure construction. For example, thousands of subsidiaries of local investment companies engage in real estate development and absorb some share of the real estate loans. The figure generated using the method above, however, may be meaningful one-day when the government decides how much of the existing LIC debt it will seek to take over as part of a bail out. 
B. The calculation above assumes that much of the extrabudgetary revenue from local governments derived from land sales went to infrastructure construction. According to excellent research done by Standard Chartered and UBS on land sales, much of the land sales revenue is spent on compensating original residents, leaving only a minority share for actual investment. Thus, a realistic application of this methodology would lead to something like 3.5 trillion RMB in new loans to LICs, not just 2.8 trillion. 

4. My estimate of 12.7 trillion in future LIC debt is baseless and is way too high for YE 2011.
My response:
A. To be sure, I now think most of this debt will not realize by YE 2011 also. However, it would not be far-fetched to think that most of this debt will be realize by YE 2012. This estimate is not "baseless" as it comes from the hundreds of lines of credit that banks have granted to local governments. As long as banks more or less adhere to these lines of credit, they will lend this amount to local governments at some point in the future.
B. Although the State Council has called for more caution in lending to local investment vehicles, we still see local governments aggressively trying to raise money from the banks. Hubei, for example, has an investment plan worth 12 trillion RMB, and plans on investing 6 trillion RMB between now and 2012 (please see Of the 6 trillion, at least 3 trillion will come from bank loans and other forms of debt. If Hubei is able to realize its ambition, we are already 1/4 of the way toward my 12.7 trillion estimate. Thus, unless the central government harshly restricts overall credit, I think local governments at the provincial and municipal levels will have no trouble borrowing an additional 12.7 trillion by YE 2011 or 2012.

tonyw's picture

"quality of life has deteriorated for those without connections, a prerequisite for wealth in the eyes of most Chinese according to polls"  just like it was/is in Tunisia. In fact how many people still think it is possible to become wealthy today without connections when wealth has become very concentrated.

Hephasteus's picture

Sociopaths and psychopaths do not fear death. Therefore their lives are meaningless. They can't think 2 weeks ahead plan what happens after they win THIS fight. Stick em in freezing water and they'll live longer than normal people. They don't fear death but they fight it with everything they have.  They are enigmas. paradoxes of their own insanity. That always wins but still loses. Leads but leads nowhere. Addicted to crisis where what is truley out of control seems to be manageable and in control in their minds. They can get power but they can't keep it. They can get women but they can't keep them. They can get men but they kill them for what they have.

They are just quite literally the purest form of nonsense we have on this planet and you can see it in all their creations. The stock market, tv shows, movies. Militaries that devour oil and resources in an effort to control oil and resources that they've just devoured, generating larger militaries that devour more of the diminishing resources to control it all along a diminishing return equation.

cosmictrainwreck's picture

hey! who you callin' a psychopath? I resemble that remark. Anyway, you're right - absolutely. Am still waiting for someone to compute the $/bbl cost to USA of the 2487 barrels we're likely to pull out of Iraq. That's warfare costs (inclusive of pallets of $100 bills) plus VA & med costs (lifetime for all troops) plus lost civilian earnings of said troops what else? OH, I KNOW: gross profits into the pockets of all DickHead Cheney's buddies. Well, what's a few trillion among friends anyway? Dollars per barrel, bitchez. Plus I want to add a $20/bbl/pint of blood premium to that.

YHC-FTSE's picture


Holy Moly! That was well written.

Sudden Debt's picture

Poor countries go by the best in a communist system.

I really believe that.

Rich countries go best by a semi socialist/capitalist system.

and EVERY TIME, the balance in THE SYSTEM is out of equilibrium, SHIT is HITTING THE FAN!!


Now the communist systems lean to capitalism while they are still poor. That will end up bad.

The Rich countries want to go to a pure form of capitalisme without any socialist touches. That will end up bad.

The word "socialist" is to often associated as a really bad thing because of the media propaganda. Everybody should give in so the individual who thinks so can have more.

If you think that's normal, you're kookook and should really start to rethink your values.

Do to others what you want others to do to you.


bank guy in Brussels's picture

My fellow Belgian speaks much truth here.

Though it is hard now to speak with Americans in these terms, as Americans confuse 'socialism' with their corporate fascism, having too little experience of the kind of positive socialism (mixed with market economics above the social protections) that has made Western Europe the closest thing to paradise that ever occurred in human history.

Americans can't even learn from Canada's superior society, with Canadians viewing socialist Tommy Douglas as the 'greatest Canadian', because he helped enact Canada's universal health care (the real thing, not the US-Obama farce and fraud now being aborted).

In Eastern Europe now, most older people who remember Communism, would vote to have it back, instead of the 'shock therapy' capitalism they have endured.

In China, what was most tragic about their late 70s alliance with the evil Americans, when they started a rough capitalism, is that they abandoned universal health care, the famous Chinese 'barefoot doctor' programme that was the admiration of much of the world, a model for poor countries generally. If they had kept the health care in place, China would not be in the current mess ... the very reason Chinese consumers won't spend more, is because they are saving for health care emergencies ... this is hindering their internal economic development, and is a major part of their risk of internal revolution as stated in the above article.

Any society without universal health care is subject to (and needing) a revolution, and this will be the fate of the US as well.

BurningFuld's picture

The Canadian says: Very insightful! And my American wife agrees.

surfsup's picture

Divisive Labels do one job really really well.  Divide.  Behind that head eating the tail is exponential interest based on debt.   When interest is dealt with constructively for the whole then the head will no longer eat the tail.   This is why ZH deserves its high marks -- it causes people to think.   What you call your enemy is always you looking back.  Its time we turn off the "make them label each other and fear others" algo.  Its in full swing as we sway to and fro on simple abstractions and look not at the interest game -- to improve it -- to bring it up to speed -- to actually evolve.  

The change required to lift the race past the oncoming cliff is so steep mostly because we have been trained to adhere to ASSOCIATION in the mind regarding illusions painted as true -- the biggest of them being national rivalries.   

Sure is looking like Japan 1989 -- woe to those who deal with divisive labels and not simple math.

Interest eventually sucks capital flow out of general circulation.  

When you read the following piece count how many times your brain reverts to its animal training to "make labels and groups."

Forget the labels -- it could be a bunch of rich Sub Saharan Africans and an offshoot tribe that wants to find its way in Balance.   All nations have this type of individual and many of the masses following in a shadow effect in abject imitation -- gullible to suggestion... 

Free your mind -- grab an excel sheet -- do the math.


Interest has a critical fault. So long as it exists, there's no neutralizing or stabilizing of its consequences; its inherent processes are perpetual, and irreversible.

As Mr. Kondratiev observed, "interest" inherently meets its end.

-Mike Montagne



lumen ex lumine's picture

bank guy in brussells:

"Americans can't even learn from Canada's superior society"


You're an idiot.


There's nothing superior about Canada's society. I'm a Canadian living in the US and I know the score.


Canada is just a couple of years behind America. Canada has the same unsustainable social network that California has. And we know where California's headed.


Canada decided to blow the real estate credit bubble to keep the party going.


But the end result will be the same.




Lord Koos's picture

Canada doesn't have anywhere near the level of problems that California has. Canada still has many resoureces that America does not.  I think Canada's future will be much brighter than the US.

YHC-FTSE's picture

It's amazing. Slowly but surely on ZH, Americans and others in general are starting to understand the infantile nature of polarized politics.

Piranhanoia's picture

We might even consider addressing gambling with the things required to live?

the not so mighty maximiza's picture

The Chinese fist will be stuck up Obama's ass.   They will work the Presidents mouth and China will benefit from the US Presidents words. 

Cheesy Bastard's picture

He will not need the teleprompter that day.

buzzsaw99's picture

Food costs account for 40% of disposable income in China. To control prices, the central government has placed limits on the number of purchases on such things as cooking oil. There are rumors the central government is releasing stockpiles, yet prices continue to rise. China has 20% of the world’s population, but just 6% of the farmable land. If the central government begins to implement price controls, shortages are inevitable. A recent reported from World Economic Forum warned that shortages could “cause social and political instability, geopolitical conflict, and irreparable environmental damage.” The central government seems to have few options to control food inflation without causing a major disruption in the rest of the economy...

My ass they don't. Those tightwad sons of bitchez could bid on the open market for grain and other foodstuffs then subsidise but they won't because they love clownbux too much and have this f@cked up thing about feeding themselves homegrown style. If the Chinese starve this is not the usa or bernanke's fault, it is their own greed. China always fails to feed its people periodically because they are stupid. I hope they are overthrown by the peasants again. [/rant]

bpj's picture

China did go to the open market, back in the 60s and 70s, with confiscated rice. Sold it so they could get em an atom bomb. No big deal, only about 40 million starved to death.

grunk's picture

The State Department and The Bernank are using inflation as a foreign policy tool/weapon.

Food is a much higher pecentage of income in China than the U.S. Unrest comes faster and larger in China with food inflation. 

When you think about it, other than having the potential of starting a war with China, it's a pretty smart strategy.

bugs_'s picture

Iron Fist meet Invisible Fist

BlackSea's picture

Uhhh, let them eat rice cake?

proLiberty's picture

And nobody should forget that the Communist Party has caused the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese rather than reduce their power.   Nobody knows how many died during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, but the government went to great lengths to erase any trace of the bloodshed there.   The number of deaths may have been in the low thousands.  

wintermute's picture

Correct. Both major communist powers, USSR and China, each killed 30+ million of their own citizens in the name of progress.

This is post-World War II, within the lifetime of today's policy-makers. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...