President Xi Jinping turns his fire on China's rich in push to redistribute wealth
Hong Kong (CNN Business)Chinese President Xi Jinping this week issued a bold new pledge to redistribute wealth in the country, piling more pressure on the country's richest citizens and businesses.
Xi
told top leaders from the ruling Chinese Communist Party on Tuesday
that the government must establish a system to redistribute wealth in
the interest of "social fairness," according to a summary of the speech published by Xinhua,
the official state news agency. He said it was "necessary" to
"reasonably regulate excessively high incomes, and encourage high-income
people and enterprises to return more to society."
The Xinhua article did not include many
details about how Xi hoped to accomplish this goal, but did suggest
that the government could consider taxation or other ways of redistributing income and wealth.
Xi
even invoked the need for "common prosperity" among the Chinese people
as critical for the Party to maintain power, and transform the country
into a "fully developed, rich and powerful" nation by 2049, the 100th
anniversary of the existence of the People's Republic of China.
"Common
prosperity is the prosperity of all the people," Xi said during the
leadership's economic meeting, which is hosted every few months to
determine policy. "Not the prosperity of a few people."
A significant phrase
That
phrase carries a lot of historical significance in China, and Xi's use
in the context of wealth redistribution calls to mind its use by Chairman Mao Zedong in the middle of the last
century as the former Communist leader advocated for dramatic economic
reforms to take power away from rich landlords and farmers, the rural
elite.
Mao
ruled the country through great economic and social transformation and
upheaval. His death in 1976 marked the end of the Cultural Revolution.
Afterward, China embarked on decades of economic liberalization under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping.
Deng
adopted his own use of the phrase "common prosperity" as the country
embraced free market principles in China's socialist economy, and opened
up the world's largest Communist country to the West.
The
former Chinese leader famously told a visiting delegation of American
corporate executives in 1985 that "some areas and some people can get
rich first, and then lead and help other regions and people [get rich],
and gradually [we] achieve common prosperity."
Over
the years, China has transitioned from a poor country to the world's
second largest economy and one of its greatest forces in business and
technology. Its rapid growth could help it overtake the United States as
the world's largest economy within a decade.
Growing inequality
But while the country's private sector and amount of wealth has exploded — in 2019, the number of rich Chinese surpassed the number of rich Americans for the first time — gaps between rich and poor and rural and urban citizens in China have worsened.
That
problem appears to have vexed Xi. On Tuesday, he admitted that the
Party "allowed some people, some areas to get rich first" following its
economic reforms dating back to the 1970s.
But
since 2012 — when Xi assumed office — he said the central government
has made "realizing the common prosperity of all people in a more
important position."
Xi's
focus on wealth redistribution ties into his government's broader goals
for the economy. In recent months, the country has embarked on an
unprecedented crackdown on tech, finance, education and other sectors in
the name of stemming financial risk, protecting the economy and
stamping out corruption.
His
government has also cited a need to safeguard national security and
protect the interests of its people. Regulators have widely blamed the
private sector for creating socioeconomic problems that could
potentially destabilize society and affect the Party's grip on power.
The
crackdown on private enterprise has rattled global investors and stoked
fears about the prospects of innovation and growth in China's economy.
The country's economy already has showed signs of weakness
lately. Data released Monday indicated that the country's recovery is
slowing, and the unemployment rate among young people has spiked to the
worst level in a year.
Economists have attributed to the slowdown to an array of factors, including the fast spread of the Delta variant, natural disasters, growing debt risks, and waning investor sentiment on the heels of the regulatory clampdown.
Post
Rapid Response:
Re: Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science
Dear Editor,
First a word of appreciation; it takes true courage in these woke days to speak the truth on undeclared interests among ‘experts’ such as share ownership (ex. Companies being procured for rapid testing kit design and delivery1), expectations of future grant extensions (ex. through the Gates Foundation2) and, anonymous membership in organisations fostering cronyism (ex. Freemasonry3) all rife in 'expert' academia, partially exposed during this pandemic response. I await the day when membership in Freemasonry has to be part of formal declarations of interest in the NHS. Knowing the truth does indeed set one free, and significantly downregulates uncertainty and fear, which is a pandemic of its own, with real consequences as in lockdown morbidity and mortality.4
There has been a lot of interest in the leadership field on the value of good followership5. However, as a leadership sceptic (as bad as being a global warming sceptic which I am not), I wonder if senior professional followers in public service are more dangerous than their political (and transient) leaders tempted to ‘follow the science’. Certainly in Britain (mainly in England) these public servants have made a series of unfortunate decisions due to poor situational awareness, perfunctory (not actuarial) risk assessments, with attempts to obfuscate details of the decision makers subsequent to the consequences being revealed to the public. They have failed to realise that their primary duty is to ordinary people who actually pay for their salaries and will be paying for their pensions for the foreseeable future.
I refer of course to the ‘processing’ of the 24,000 elderly hospitalised patients, who were summarily discharged to any available care home places in April 2020, when testing for SARSCov2 was not readily available at general hospitals 6. This led to 50% of the English care homes to be infected (~15,000 deaths), when a more considered choice of setting up potential Covid floors in some care homes with dedicated staff would have been possible, even considering the need to urgently clear hospital beds.
Then there was the recommendation for GPs to ‘optimise’ DNAR orders, if necessary using a blanket approach for care home residents; which the CQC is currently investigating7. Both of these policies were in breach of article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR): the right to life.8 Furthermore the risk of breaching article 8 of the ECHR (the right to family life) continues, with capacitious older people willing to accept the risk of contracting Covid, being obstructed from hugging their grandchildren after 6 months of enforced.
On drug trials of prophylaxis treatments for pre hospitalised patients with Covid19, the WHO ‘solidarity’ and Oxford’s ‘recovery’ studies both used 4 times the BNF maximum recommended doses of Hydroxychloroquine9. How these researchers managed to get their study protocols through ‘expert’ ethics committees and (perhaps more to the point) what was actually told to patients volunteering in these trials remains a mystery. I understand that the dose of HCL was determined by computer modellers to determine the dose likely to be effective against SARSCov2.
I will not repeat the discussion on the now infamous retractions in Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine linked with the Surgisphere data mining company, apart from emphasising the ever present risk of data fabrication and the related inadequacy of our peer review system; worsened by authors refusing to submit raw data for independent post-hoc analysis. Based on my clinical outcome experience, I suspect that at least 30% of publications (NICE approved) on which I base my clinical practice potentially involve data fabrication or at least selective data presentation10. Statistical methods to pick up data fabrications are being attempted11 as whistleblowing is even more hazardous for one’s career prospects compared to clinical postings.
Finally, as my medical career proceeds to its autumnal stage (36 years as a doctor in the NHS) I have serious reservations about our consultation practices, especially on achieving ‘good enough’ consent from vulnsarable (often elderly) patients, for example having to make decisions on admissions and on accepting potentially toxic treatments. This issue continues despite the events leading to the Montgomery judgement of 201512. Thankfully (albeit late in the day) the GMC has produced good practice guidance on this issue, hopefully which will improve our consultation and consent practices13.
I think we should be unbiased and spell out in simple (non-jargon) english about numbers need to treat and to harm, and what the consequences (or lack of them) if treatment was delayed or not undertaken entirely; yes we do have the facts most of the time. ‘Treatment trials of 1’ should only be undertaken after jointly deciding on the trial duration, success criteria and a guarantee that the same doctor reviews outcomes at the end of the trial, firstly to avoid retrospective bias, but also to avoid unnecessary polypharmacy, as another doctor (especially a junior) conducting follow up would be typically loath to discontinue a drug if there are no side effects.
It is a genuinely interesting time to be in medicine, as I remind my son (age 18) who is applying for medical schools, but interestingly, considering starting with a biomedical year, in order to get a grounding in critical appraisal and to better understand the rapidly evolving basic sciences of immunology, cell biology and gut microbiota. Maybe he will be speared of all these malfeasance (at least I hope so).
References
1. Harcombe, Z. SAGE conflicts of interest. Pub. 9.1.20. https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2020/11/sage-conflicts-of-interest
2. Howley, P. gates Foundation funded both Imperial College and IHME; failed model makers. Pub. 16.5.20. https://nationalfile.com/gates-foundation-funded-both-imperial-college-
3. Pal, R. Freemasonry and Medicine. Pub 19.10.11 https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rita-pal/freemasonry-and-medicine_b...
4. Office for National Statistics. Analysis of death registrations not involving coronavirus (Covid19), England and Wales: 28/12/19 to 1/5/20. www.ons.gov.uk › deaths › articles › technicalannex
5. Gibbons, A., Bryant, D. Followership; the forgotten part of leadership. Last updated on 18.5.20
https://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/articles/followership-the-forgotten......
6. National Audit Office. Readying the NHS and adult social care in England for Covid-19. 2020; ISBN 9781786043191
7. CQC to review use of DNACPR during pandemic. September 2020. www.cqc.org.uk › news › stories › cqc-review-use-dna...
8. Bates, E.S. Covid-19 symposium: Article 2 ECHR’s positive obligations. How can human rights law inform the protection of health care personnel and vulnsarable patients in the Covid-19 pandemic? opiniojuris.org/2020/04/01/covid-19-symposium-article-2-echrs-positive...
9. Wise, J., Coombes, R. Covid-19: The inside story of the Recovery trial. BMJ 2020;370:m2670 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2670
10. Fanelli, D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLOS ONE. Pub 29.5.2009 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
11. Hartgerink C, Wicherts J, van Assen M The value of statistical tools to detect data fabrication. Research Ideas and Outcomes. 2016; Vol 2e8860. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8860
12. Talukdar, S. Ensuring Risk Awareness of Vulnerable Patients in the Post-Montgomery Era: Treading a Fine Line. Health Care Analysis. 2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00396-9
13. Sokol, D. New guidance from the GMC: what constitutes meaningful dialogue? BMJ 2020;371:m3933 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3933
14. Carvour, M. Teaching critical appraisal of medical evidence. AMA Journal of Ethics. 2013; Vol 15 (1): 23 - 27.
Competing interests: No competing interests