I've read some of James Palmer's work on Foreign Policy, he's definitely a bit biased and likes to exaggerate his words ever so slightly. A key example is his p

I've read some of James Palmer's work on Foreign Policy, he's definitely a bit biased and likes to exaggerate his words ever so slightly. A key example is his piece: http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/26/chinas-stability-myth-is-dead/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/26/chinas-stability-myth-is... where he pointed out fireworks being banned on Chinese New Year as a form of public displays being banned or something which is false, don't think people were being herded into their houses and stopped from celebrating because thats ridiculous and you will get a revolution from simply doing that. Rather Reuters points out that its to curb environmental pollution which China has struggled with in the cities: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lunar-newyear-china-fireworks/chinas-millennium-old-fireworks-hub-grapples-with-bans-and-shifting-traditions-idUSKBN1FV10O https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lunar-newyear-china-firew... I however do agree with some of his sentiments, its very hard to deal with numbers in China because they are subject to change and bureaucrats will polish it up to make themselves look better. Overall, I believe James to have the right ideas and facts but his commentary is slightly over-the-top.