OK ok,let's say all you said is true. Then I am begging our great world-peace-keeper uncle Sam to deliver great democracy to this evil country.
Then what?why do not they take China like Iraq. It is 100 times more evil
Looks like you really know china history.But you are very wrong. Even during the cultural revolution, chinese GDP doubled in that 10 years.
(please do some googling).
Many of your so called facts are wrong.I do want to comments on all of them.
So please, if you try to understand china, do it like a real engineer. Do not use those second-hand
biased facts.Be careful with the media, since most of them are trying to brainwash you guys.
The country's trade policy has literally been the most protectionist in the world for the last few decades, with an average industrial tariff rate at 40-55%.
The majority of the population cannot vote, and vote-buying and electoral fraud are widespread.
Corruption is rampant, with the political parties selling government jobs to their financial bankers.
The country has never recruited a single civil servant through an open,competitive process. Its public finances are precarious, with records of government loan defaults that worry foreign investors.
Especially in the banking sector, foreigners are prohibited from becoming directos while foreign shareholders cannot even exercise their voting rights unless they are resident in the country.
It does not have a competition law, permitting cartels and other forms of monopoly to grow unchecked.
Its protection of intellectual property rights is patchy, particularly marred by its refusal to protect foreigner's copyrights.
Country A is China today.
Country B is the USA, around 1880, when it was somewhat poorer than today's China.
Two basket cases...
Both these countries below are up to their necks in heavy protectionism, discrimination against foreign investors,
weak protection of property rights, monopolies, lack of democracy, corruption, lack of meritocracy, and so on.
You would think that they are both headed for developmental disasters. But think again.
Until a decade ago, the country was highly protectionist, with an average industrial tariff rate well above 30%.
Despite the recent tariff reduction, important visible and invisible trade restrictions remain.
The country has heavy restrictions on cross-border flows of capital, a state-owned and highly regulated banking sector,
and numerous restrictions on foreign ownership of financial assets. Foreign firms producing in the country complain that they are discriminated against through differential taxes and regulations by local governments.
The country has no elections and is riddled with corruption. It has opaque and complicated property rights.
In particular, its protection of intellectual property rights is weak, making it the pirate capital of the world.
The country has a large number of state-owned enterprises, many of which make large losses but are propped up by subsidies and government-granted monopoly rights.
Wrong. Services will eventually follow the money back to China. Governments should be working on levelling the playing field by legislation and taxation , something they have signally failed to do. Look at the raspberry pi debacle where even though the AP was designed by Broadcom in the UK, tax rules meant that the raspi boards were cheaper to build in China. Stoopid is as stoopid does!
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.