China’s banking system has undergone significant changes in the last two decades and is functioning more like western banks than before but remains owned by China’s government.
That is a significant difference. For example, in America, there are no government owned banks but the public sector insures any risk taking the private sector banks take. This means that private sector banks may lose trillions and the government will step in, as Washington D.C. did in 2008, and go deep into debt to save the banks from drowning and taking America and the West’s economies down with them into a black hole.
The biggest difference between the west and China is the money trail.
In America and the west, most people borrow from private banks to buy private property and when the value of the property drops, as it has in the United States, and the borrowers walk away letting the bank reposes a property that is worth much less than the loan amount, much of the money is gone—when the house sold, the equity went to the previous owner and any mortgage that existed was paid off. The US government made no money on the deal (property tax goes to state governments).
It doesn’t work that way in China because the banks are owned (and controlled) by the central government and so is the land. A better idea of the difference between buying private property in the west and government owned property in China comes from Global Property Guide.com that says, “The slowdown (drop in property values in China) follows market-cooling measures first introduced in April 2010. The campaign intensified in 2011. The down payment for first-time buyers’ mortgages was increased to 30% from 20%, and for second homes rose to 60% from 50%.”
By comparison, in America, down payments may be as low as no money down or 3.5% and as high as 20% depending on the loan and the qualifications of the buyer/s.
Continued on January 13, 2012 in The Economic Health of BRICS – Part 3 or Return to Part 1
______________
Lloyd Lofthouse is the award-winning author of The Concubine Saga. When you love a Chinese woman, you marry her family and culture too. This is the love story Sir Robert Hart did not want the world to discover.
Subscribe to “iLook China”
Sign up for an E-mail Subscription at the top of this page.
iLook China 
You’re an imbecile Lloyd, a soft headed moron.
I notice that Troy always write some simple chinese sentence in pinyin (and never answering what he has been actually asked)…probably can’t read hanzi. As for the content of those “pinyin rants” I’d leave it alone…such 弱智的狗屁 doesn’t really deserve any attention， but are much revealing of mr. Parfitt psychiatric condition.
Alessandro,
Today, Mr. Parfitt posted the same comment four times in four minutes for four different posts. Based on this behavior linked to all previous behavior, I believe I may have identified Mr. Parfitt’s mental condition.
In addition, there is a “Rate This” followed by FIVE STARS at the end of each post. When Mr. Parfitt went ballistic with this compulsive behavior after I started to delete and save his “Intellectually-dishonest” comments, someone, probably him, started to vote ONE STAR for every post to bring that score down.
This behavior is not natural and may point to only one condition.
Mr. Parfitt may suffer from Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (there are tests to identify this condition and medication to help control and deal with it)
Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) is a condition in which a person is preoccupied with rules, orderliness, and control.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors
Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder tends to occur in families, so genes may be involved. A person’s childhood and environment may also play roles.
This condition can affect both men and women, but it most often occurs in men.
Symptoms
OCPD has some of the same symptoms as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, people with OCD have unwanted thoughts, while people with OCPD believe that their thoughts are correct.
People with both OCPD and OCD tend to be high achievers and feel a sense of urgency about their actions. They may become very upset if other people interfere with their rigid routines. They may not be able to express their anger directly. Instead, people with OCPD experience feelings that they consider more appropriate, like anxiety or frustration.
A person with this personality disorder has symptoms of perfectionism that usually begin in early adulthood. This perfectionism may interfere with the person’s ability to complete tasks, because their standards are so rigid.
People with this disorder may emotionally withdraw when they are not able to control a situation. This can interfere with their ability to solve problems and form close relationships.
Some of the other signs of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder include:
• Excess devotion to work
• Inability to throw things away, even when the objects have no value
• Lack of flexibility
• Lack of generosity
• Not wanting to allow other people to do things
• Not willing to show affection
• Preoccupation with details, rules, and lists
Source: U.S. National Library of Medicine – The World’s Largest Medical Library
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001938/
I think it’s useless to say that one could be “cherry picking” also in the book he/she reads.
Alessandro,
That depends on how the claim that someone is “cherry picking” is worded. I have discovered several educational sites [some linked to universities] that discuss how to reveal when someone is using logical fallacies in a debate and contrary to Mr. Parfitt’s ranting, it is acceptable in a debate to point out when someone is using logical fallacies as part of his or her argument to support opinions/claims.
For example: at “Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate”, I learned about two intellectually honest debate tactics—
1. Revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. Revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic
Source: http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html
Before my debate with Mr. Parfitt, I was aware of a few of the terms that deal with logical fallacies, but I had never studied the topic in depth in relation to an intellectually honest formal debate or argument. I had never taken a class in debating. However, as a journalism student [BA 1973], I took classes in writing opinions and editorials and was taught how to support my opinions properly with evidence, which is what alerted me as Mr. Parfitt continued to break every rule I was taught not to do when writing an editorial or opinion piece.
Then he pulled some tricks I didn’t recognize until after he claimed there was no such thing as “cherry picking”, and I started to research the topic revealing his Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics.
I am working on a post or a series of posts on this topic that will appear as posts and not comments [which many readers may never see], and it may take some time before I’m done. I hope that the post/s will appear before the end of January. A post or series of posts stands a better chance to reach a wider audience. In fact, when I read a post from another Blog, I seldom read the comments and even when I do, I never read them all.
Since I notified Mr. Parfitt that I would be deleting his comments that used logical fallacies [Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics] to further his opinions and make it appear as if he is the winner in the argument, I have deleted ten but I have saved them in another file and will be using them as evidence in the post/s about Logical Fallacies I’m working on.
There is an eleventh post about water that I have not deleted. In fact, I have not approved that post, because I want to write a response before it appears on the Blog.
I’m copying the ten posts I deleted here [I didnt’ really delete them. I saved them] as part of my comment to you as examples of Mr. Parfitt’s ranting [and possible signs of mental illness—I’ll let a psychologist or psychiatrist form conclusions on his or her own based on the evidence of Mr. Parfitt words] so readers may see how his mind works.
January 11 at 14:17
Mr. Parfitt said, “There is no such thing as weasal words. Again, that’s teenagese.
Note: the embedded video does not come from Mr. Parfitt. I added it here to make a point.
Mr. Parfitt said, “You could never use the term weasal words in academic discourse [Note: Since when is a Blog an academic discourse?], just like you could never use dude, LMAO, bittersweet, etc. There are proper – adult – terms for such things. That you used the phrase weasal words underscores a dearth of knowledge, juvenility, or both.
“You can quote or copy-and-paste all the fallacy definitions you wish, but you’ll never be able to employ them in argument or rebuttal. You lack the wherewithal.
“Ai li shan duo. Zhi dao ma? Ni shi Gong Chan Dang de gou tui er yi. Bai mu ni.”
January 11 at 19:21
That’s not a long enough post Lloyd. We expect longer.
You can bar me from commenting. All hopeless CCP apologists are censors. It’s inevitable that you would try something like that. You lack the intelligence to argue, so you ban. What do all those books you’ve discovered say about that?
I don’t give a shit what those dictionaries say. It’s not called weasal words. It’s called begging the question language, or begging the question reasoning.
Ex. Mr. Parfitt and his ignorant ideas….
But are Mr. Parfitt’s ideas ignorant? This must be proven. The word ignorant represents begging the question language. It is not a weasal word, at least if you’re older than 14. The person who engages in this fallacy may not be acting like a weasal; they just using language that begs the question.
You might want to learn what those newfound logical fallacies mean before you copy and paste Lloyd.
January 11 at 19:23
Gong chan dang de gou tui hao.
January 11, 19:27
Okay, Lloyd,
So why is Sun called the father of Chinese democracy?
Why did the government on Taiwan finally succumb to the demands of the Chinese people for democracy – by allowing democracy?Why was one of Sun’s three principle’s democracy?
And why do you lie so much?
January 12 at 9:21
You delete the posts because you’re a propagandist and by extension a censor. You don’t have the intellectual wherewithall to debate, so you ban.
The last post was not a string of questions. [Note: Mr. Parfitt may be referring to the comment that I have not approved yet]
January 12 at 9:24
Banning my comments only makes you look like a bad sport. You can’t argue – you don’t know how – so you delete.
January 12 at 17:22
You can repeatedly delete my comments, but I will continue to post them. You’ve deleted more than four, and it’s not because they consist of questions. You just don’t know how to debate, so you cheat by deleting your opponents’ remarks.
There was no string of questions remark. Now, you’re lying to your readers.
January 12 at 17:54
Be careful with that logic information you’ve found Lloyd. You don’t know how to use it yet. [Note: I’m learning.]
January 12 at 19:44
You can repeatedly delete my comments, but I will continue to post them. You’ve deleted more than four, and it’s not because they consist of questions. You just don’t know how to debate, so you cheat by deleting your opponents’ remarks.
There was no string of questions remark. Now, you’re lying to your readers.
January 12 at 19:44 [he must have sent this one twice in the same minute]
You can repeatedly delete my comments, but I will continue to post them. You’ve deleted more than four, and it’s not because they consist of questions. You just don’t know how to debate, so you cheat by deleting your opponents’ remarks.
Mr. Parfitt said, “There was no string of questions remark. Now, you’re lying to your readers.”
______________________________
Alessandro, Mr. Parfitt’s comment with the string of questions I was referring to was posted January 11 at 19:27 along with three other posts he wrote that day and posted at 14:17, 19:21 and 19:23.
Scroll up in this comment and you will find those questions. Mr. Parfitt may not be aware of how I see comments as the host of this Blog. From his perspective, he calls me a liar but that is not the case.
As the host of this site, when I log on, I am taken to the administration page where all the comments for all the posts are listed in the order they are received according to date and time. Anyone that hosts a WordPress Blog would be aware of this since it is possible to receive comments for posts that appeared years ago. Instead of being taken to that post, I see only the comments and usually pay no attention to which post the comment was for.
Since Mr. Parfitt started obsessively posting several comments a day [all deleted and saved] on different posts, in most cases using logical fallacies, I read them in the order they appear and if I reply, I do it from the administration page—not the post’s page. However, if I write a reply, it appears on the post’s page where he left the comment.
In addition, on January 11 at 19:21, Mr. Parfitt said, “All hopeless CCP apologists are censors. It’s inevitable that you would try something like that.” [Note: This comment is an example of a logical fallacy, which I will use as an example in a post about Intellectual Dishonesty later in January.]
Again, this is not the case. I only said I would delete comments that included intellectual dishonesty with logical fallacies. When Mr. Parfitt writes a comment that is intellectually honest using academically acceptable proper logic for debate and arguments, I approve and post it. So far, he has only done that once, when he sent the link for a book he read about China’s banking system. I posted that comment and wrote a reply.
I’m beginning to suspect that Mr. Parfitt may not know the difference between what is honest and dishonest in an intellectual argument or debate and/or he believes those rules do not apply to him.
To learn about China’s banking system, see the book Red Capitalism.
http://www.amazon.ca/Red-Capitalism-Financial-Foundation-Extraordinary/dp/0470825863
Mr. Parfitt,
I read all the reviews on Amazon for “Red Capitalism” in addition to the only reader review, which you wrote. You had a lot to say. I recommend that everyone should read all your reviews starting with this one — I did.
I found this line in your review of “Red Capitalism” very interesting.
Parfitt wrote, “Never form an argument from questions, and avoid asking the reader questions,’ are fundamentals a professor would tell a first-year student.”
Is that what your first year professor told you? If so, why do you ignore him or her? Instead, you often resorted to tactics using loaded questions.
Definition for loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?) or (Why are you a liar?)
We can only hope China doesn’t have the financial meltdown predicted in “Red Capitalism”, which may be similar or worse to the financial Tsunami the US had in 2008. To have the world’s two largest economies in financial crises would be equal to a global 10.0 earthquake on the Richter scale. If a financial crises in the US in 2008 caused about $40 trillion in global losses and tens of millions of lost jobs around the world [mostly in Europe, North America and China], imagine what would happen if both the US, Europe and China went under.
Would that usher in a global Dark Age with the collapse of civilization?
However, until China does have this financial meltdown, it is all conjecture. If China is hiding a lot of debt, they can only hide it so long. All one has to do is look at how long Enron’s executives managed to hide what they were doing and what happened because they managed to succeed for so long.
This link will take anyone that is interested in Mr. Parfitt’s Amazon reader reviews. If you read them, you will discover that Parfitt says he read 80 books on China. All that information. He must have a photographic memory and instant recall.
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1XXSZCR3FAVAK/ref=cm_cr_dp_auth_rev/177-6396934-1659648?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
“Red Capitalism” may be correct and one day China’s banking system will collapse. However, until that day, the predictions and opinions in this book are conjecture and not a fact.
In addition, if that day comes, China may do what the United States did when its financial system started to collapse in 2007 and 2008 and bail out the banking system and larger industries such as General Motors by printing more money as America did and lending and/or giving it to the private sector to prop them up. If America can do it, why can’t China? If not, does that mean only democracies are allowed to print more money than they take in from revenues and taxes?