7 ms·

Why the World Is Too Optimistic About China's Economic Future

64 points by jeffreyrogers 12y ago

jeffreyrogers 12y ago
Here is a link to an ungated copy of the paper mentioned in the article: http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/events/2013/november/asia-economic-policy-conference/program/files/Asiaphoria-Meet-Regression-to-the-Mean.pdf http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/events/2013/november/... (The story itself should still point to the qz.com link, however, since that is more relevant for most readers).
nichtich 12y ago
Over the years I've read a lot of arguments from both sides: China's growth will continue for a quite long time vs. it'll end soon. Both have some valid and interesting points and I'm still not convinced either way. But there's a more general theme I find interesting. If you are to predict how long something is going to last, given it already lasted longer than its peers, there are always two kinds of thinking: a) it's already stretching itself so it'll end soon, or b) the fact it already lasted this long means our references are not correct, and this could last a lot longer than we thought possible.
Animats 12y ago
Piketty in his well-known "Capital in the 21st century", points out that rapid growth isn't unusual as countries catch up to the state of the art. Countries that are leading technologically grow more slowly, but from a higher level. Beijing and Shentzen may have caught up, but the interior provinces of China are still in catch-up mode. China is still building out its inter-provincial highway system and its high speed rail system. There's about another ten years of building those out. The government of China has been building new cities far from the coast, recognizing that the coastal areas are way over-urbanized and growth has to be moved elsewhere. It's still not clear how those will work out.
drawkbox 12y ago
Good article and observations. One thing to think about though from the scale of China is that it still a pretty locked down market still. It has opened up immensely and Hong Kong is always mentioned here. But they still oversee and control many areas of their economy. Strict control of a market can lead to one of two things: 1) falsifying growth that isn't true market value demand or 2) growth being repressed by policy. China could be possibly extending into their 36th year of high growth with either of those. If the former it will end badly, if the latter, once they really open up, they could exponentially still grow intensely. They are still owed lots of money in debt and that it what helped spike the US after WWII, other countries battered and in debt. Lots of riches will flow to China for some time. Another small point is China isn't as innovative yet as places like Japan or South Korea. If they did innovate like that it could also get wild, but mostly it is a copy economy as of now.
wahsd 12y ago
"Larry Summers..." AAaaannddd I'm done.
- blissini 12y ago
  Yeah, as he was candidating for FED chairmanship.
- jeffreyrogers 12y ago
  That's a bit narrowminded on your end. Regardless of what you think of Summers personally, he is intelligent and his ideas are at least worth grappling with even if you ultimately think they're wrong.
  - jayvanguard 12y ago
    > he is intelligent His past record suggests this is debatable. He is very well connected but that is all you can say with certainty.
leoc 12y ago
A related blog post that also mentions the Summers and Pritchett paper: http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/10/how-to-link-australian-iron-with-marine-le-pen/ http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/10/how-to-link-australian-iron-... .
zhte415 12y ago
A system's growth rate and its long term interest rate are identical. [That doesn't necessarily mean getting a long from a bank, or from relying on a currency.] The return on capital is the cost of capital when accounted for system-wide. A very simple lens that is rarely understood.
nickbauman 12y ago
I've always been bearish on China's long term because of a few realities people interested tend to gloss over. Ten years ago, China was a nation of 900 million rural peasants who were essentially subsistence farmers, with no money at all. Then there was a cohort of about 100 million agricultural farm workers. These were people who _occasionally_ had money. The remaining 300 million consisted of a largely poor underclass, a tiny "middle class" consisting of people with the buying power of less than the American minimum wage worker. Finally an "elite" class of workers who made more than an American burger flipper. Of those who had money, they saved 40% of their income in fear of hard times. Things have changed somewhat, but this heavily uneven and stratified society (of which we Americans increasingly resemble, sadly) continues unabated. I just don't see good economic outcomes from that.
joshuaellinger 12y ago
China is a special case. For most of human history, it was a major power. In a sense, their recent growth is just catching up to the long-term historical norm. It is also different in that the US basically shipped them manufacturing capability (in some cases literally shipping the machines from Ohio). I don't think that has happened before at anything close to this scale. This is the first industrialization period without a major destructive war at the end (so far...) What happens if China shifts from a nation of producers to a nation of consumers like the US did in the 1950s? What happens if nuclear weapons or the example of the US keep their rulers from getting into costly wars? What happens if they control energy production in 25 years because they force all their producers to convert to solar early and dominate the industry. Overall, I am skeptical that a historical study really generates much insight -- we are in uncharted territory. Finally, I can't read anything by Larry Summers without thinking about this article from Naked Capitalism. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/07/why-larry-summers-should-not-be-permitted-to-run-anything-more-important-than-a-dog-pound.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/07/why-larry-summers-sho...
- rgbrenner 12y ago
  > I can't read anything by Larry Summers without thinking about this article from Naked Capitalism I'm no fan of Larry Summers, but that article was crap. He was there from 2001-2006, and in 2008 they lost a bunch of money.. which the article says is Summers fault. You know what Harvard said in 2007 about their fund [0]: Harvard University’s endowment earned a 23.0 percent return during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007. With FY07 being one of the best performance years since the inception of Harvard Management Company in 1974 ... In addition to significantly outpacing the University’s total return target, HMC significantly out-performed its internal benchmark. Furthermore, the fiscal 2007 performance compares favorably to that recorded by other large investment management institutions. Specifically, the endowment’s return of 23.0 percent out-performed the median for the 151 large institutional funds as measured by the Trust Universe Comparison Service (17.7 percent), as well as the 20.9 percent that marks the top 5 percentile. The fund posts record gains, but when the economy tanks and everyone loses money, at Harvard it's Summers fault. If he was as terrible as the article says, they had two years after he left to undo the damage he caused. Instead they waited until the recession hit, then unwound it. Actions speak louder than works (not to mention story telling after-the-fact when you need a scapegoat). http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/08/harvard-endowment-posts-strong-positive-return/ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/08/harvard-endowm... Edit: note that the gains in 2007 ($5B) were significantly more than the loses in 2008 ($2B) that summers supposedly caused. Since 2001, the fund nearly doubled(!): http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/09.26/06-endowment.html http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/09.26/06-endowment.html
kyllo 12y ago
TFA is correct that corruption and inequality are major hazards. But the greatest and most immediate threat is the real estate bubble, in my observation. There have been plenty of articles pointing out that the prices are unsustainably high and fueled by speculation and artificially cheap loans, and that the construction quality is terrible largely due to embezzlement. It's not a matter of if it all comes crashing down, but when.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  Corruption and inequality caused much of the real estate bubble, however.
  - kyllo 12y ago
    Arguably so, by way of crooked government officials making cheap capital and permits available to their friends in exchange for gifts and insider investment opportunities.
Mikeb85 12y ago
As far as I'm concerned, the world isn't optimistic enough about China. Yeah, growth has slowed (eventually it must, simply because of the law of big numbers). But data just came out today, 7.3% GDP growth for this quarter versus the same quarter last year. Slower than hoped for, but still very good. People may not have noticed, but China is already a consumer juggernaut. Lenovo is #1 in computer sales. Lenovo is the 3rd largest cell phone maker in the world (!!). And they've barely even closed the Motorola deal. Alibaba was the biggest IPO ever, and the Agricultural Bank of China was the second largest ever. When the Hong Kong-Shanghai stock connect goes live, they'll have the second largest stock exchange in the world. They're the largest market in the world for luxury goods. They have 1.3 billion people, the middle class is growing exponentially, and they're highly educated. People talk about innovation and talk about iPhones. China owns the solar business (so much that the US puts tariffs on Chinese solar companies), and invests more in clean technology than anyone. They've got some incredible technology companies and innovative industrials, even if none of it reaches our shores. The future belongs to China. You can say what you want about too much debt, overpriced real estate, manufacturing, etc..., but they'll figure that out. All one needs to do is visit China, see their markets, see the consumer goods and what's happening over there to know that they own the future.
- hyperbovine 12y ago
  The future of... conspicuously consuming luxury goods? Thanks but I'll pass. It's also not totally clear how sustainable the whole thought police thing is in the long-term. The larger and more educated is the middle class, the more of a problem it will become for them.
  - icelancer 12y ago
    Why would the thought police situation cause economic collapse? If there's enough pressure, things will change. China already has changed politically quite a bit over the last 50 years.
  - netcan 12y ago
    Conspicuous consumption is an interesting concept, but it's over used. Rolexes don't mean anything if everyone can afford one. The consumption of the middle classes has elements of all sorts non rational behavior, but dismissing people's economic motivations this way is disrespectful, especially people you don't know. Personally I see ambition, especially ambitious for the next generation as a healthy disposition. What it will be applied to will vary and change, but the ambition itself can build momentum.
mimighost 12y ago
Because...everyone else sucks badly. If China's 7.3% gdp growth is defined as slow and worrisome, what words would you pick for the situation in other places, such as Europe? However, it definitely has its own big problem, and if without proper handling, it will become a global scale crisis. Yes, we are talking about the housing bubble and a quickly aging population. At last, IMO, it is likely China is going to be yet another Japan, just bigger.
netcan 12y ago
Reporting that relates this directly to economics reads like a musing on some esoteric philosophy. It's economists' own fault, presenting their profession as a collection of mathematical models, the science of politics and history. Saying things like 'boost efficiency and competitiveness' sounds like a conversational reference to variables in an equation. The driving force behind economic growth over a measurable period of time (not quarters, or even years) is technology, in a wider sense of the word. Companies are an invention. Political structures and the stability or instability they cause is invention. Money itself was invented. China was economically suppressed for a long time. When they found their formula for industrialization they had a lot of catching up to do. Planting techniques that increased yield. Manufacturing techniques producing more. They spent 2 generations catching up. Catching up is a matter of applying existing technologies. When they created the weaving room of the world, industrial strength looms had existed for a long time. The reality is the growth at that end of the spectrum is fast. Growth nearer the recent invention end is slower, because invention and proliferation of technologies are intertwined. That's the main story here. China is approaching the point where they economic growth depends on technological advancement. Things need inventing. That's slower. Looking at this at the resolution of months, it seems that central bank policies are the engine of advancement. Financing, consumer appetites.. This is nonsense. Imagine the output of a country like Germany doubling or tripling of more over generations. That's what x% annual growth means. They will need to learn to make more with the same number of people. That can only happen because of technology. So, that's the default prediction. China's long term economic growth rate will slow to the rate of technological advancement, mitigated in the short term by politicized maneuvering. They are increasingly contributing to technology though so maybe they can move the world's output by a couple of ticks.
jayvanguard 12y ago
Shouldn't he be looking at empire level data e.g. the growth of the US economy over the past 100 years, the British Empire in the 1800s, or the Roman Empire at its height. No-one is saying Singapore or Cambodia is going to be the next world super power so how relevant is it to compare their 5 year growth spurts to what China is undergoing?
timtas 12y ago
Summers is most likely correct in his conclusions, but he is predictably wrong is his explanation of the cause. The end of crony system, he contends, will shift control to untested free market players, removing certainty of high performance that the corrupt system produced. Although we might object to central planning on cultural grounds, it has worked, and it's end will cause a fall. He's just as clueless the operation of boom-and-bust cycles in China as he is here in America. He thinks that GDP growth indicates performance instead simply activity, so no surprise he reads a downturn as caused by factors that damage performance. In China, as here, some GDP is good, and some destroys value and is thus unsustainable. The coming downturn in China will be the cure for malinvestment on an epic scale [1][2][3][4], not the disease. The crony system has generated massive amount of activity, most of it economically virtuous, but a great deal of it is economically evil, utter waste, and must be stopped and unwound. The longer the crony system persists, the bigger will be the reckoning. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-ghost-cities-in-2014-2014-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-ghost-cities-in-2014-2... [2] http://www.thebubblebubble.com/china-bubble/ http://www.thebubblebubble.com/china-bubble/ [3] http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/surprise-china-built-the-worlds-biggest-building-and-its-a-boondoggle http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/surprise-china-built-the-wor... [4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-politics-of-chinas-high-speed-train-wreck/2011/07/27/gIQAGedXdI_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-politics-of-china...

64 points by jeffreyrogers 12y ago

Here is a link to an ungated copy of the paper mentioned in the article: http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/events/2013/november/asia-economic-policy-conference/program/files/Asiaphoria-Meet-Regression-to-the-Mean.pdf http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/events/2013/november/... (The story itself should still point to the qz.com link, however, since that is more relevant for most readers).

nichtich 12y ago

Over the years I've read a lot of arguments from both sides: China's growth will continue for a quite long time vs. it'll end soon. Both have some valid and interesting points and I'm still not convinced either way. But there's a more general theme I find interesting. If you are to predict how long something is going to last, given it already lasted longer than its peers, there are always two kinds of thinking: a) it's already stretching itself so it'll end soon, or b) the fact it already lasted this long means our references are not correct, and this could last a lot longer than we thought possible.

Animats 12y ago

Piketty in his well-known "Capital in the 21st century", points out that rapid growth isn't unusual as countries catch up to the state of the art. Countries that are leading technologically grow more slowly, but from a higher level. Beijing and Shentzen may have caught up, but the interior provinces of China are still in catch-up mode. China is still building out its inter-provincial highway system and its high speed rail system. There's about another ten years of building those out. The government of China has been building new cities far from the coast, recognizing that the coastal areas are way over-urbanized and growth has to be moved elsewhere. It's still not clear how those will work out.

drawkbox 12y ago

Good article and observations. One thing to think about though from the scale of China is that it still a pretty locked down market still. It has opened up immensely and Hong Kong is always mentioned here. But they still oversee and control many areas of their economy. Strict control of a market can lead to one of two things: 1) falsifying growth that isn't true market value demand or 2) growth being repressed by policy. China could be possibly extending into their 36th year of high growth with either of those. If the former it will end badly, if the latter, once they really open up, they could exponentially still grow intensely. They are still owed lots of money in debt and that it what helped spike the US after WWII, other countries battered and in debt. Lots of riches will flow to China for some time. Another small point is China isn't as innovative yet as places like Japan or South Korea. If they did innovate like that it could also get wild, but mostly it is a copy economy as of now.

wahsd 12y ago

"Larry Summers..." AAaaannddd I'm done.

blissini 12y ago
Yeah, as he was candidating for FED chairmanship.
jeffreyrogers 12y ago
That's a bit narrowminded on your end. Regardless of what you think of Summers personally, he is intelligent and his ideas are at least worth grappling with even if you ultimately think they're wrong.
- jayvanguard 12y ago
  > he is intelligent His past record suggests this is debatable. He is very well connected but that is all you can say with certainty.

leoc 12y ago

A related blog post that also mentions the Summers and Pritchett paper: http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/10/how-to-link-australian-iron-with-marine-le-pen/ http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/10/how-to-link-australian-iron-... .

zhte415 12y ago

A system's growth rate and its long term interest rate are identical. [That doesn't necessarily mean getting a long from a bank, or from relying on a currency.] The return on capital is the cost of capital when accounted for system-wide. A very simple lens that is rarely understood.

nickbauman 12y ago

I've always been bearish on China's long term because of a few realities people interested tend to gloss over. Ten years ago, China was a nation of 900 million rural peasants who were essentially subsistence farmers, with no money at all. Then there was a cohort of about 100 million agricultural farm workers. These were people who _occasionally_ had money. The remaining 300 million consisted of a largely poor underclass, a tiny "middle class" consisting of people with the buying power of less than the American minimum wage worker. Finally an "elite" class of workers who made more than an American burger flipper. Of those who had money, they saved 40% of their income in fear of hard times. Things have changed somewhat, but this heavily uneven and stratified society (of which we Americans increasingly resemble, sadly) continues unabated. I just don't see good economic outcomes from that.

joshuaellinger 12y ago

China is a special case. For most of human history, it was a major power. In a sense, their recent growth is just catching up to the long-term historical norm. It is also different in that the US basically shipped them manufacturing capability (in some cases literally shipping the machines from Ohio). I don't think that has happened before at anything close to this scale. This is the first industrialization period without a major destructive war at the end (so far...) What happens if China shifts from a nation of producers to a nation of consumers like the US did in the 1950s? What happens if nuclear weapons or the example of the US keep their rulers from getting into costly wars? What happens if they control energy production in 25 years because they force all their producers to convert to solar early and dominate the industry. Overall, I am skeptical that a historical study really generates much insight -- we are in uncharted territory. Finally, I can't read anything by Larry Summers without thinking about this article from Naked Capitalism. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/07/why-larry-summers-should-not-be-permitted-to-run-anything-more-important-than-a-dog-pound.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/07/why-larry-summers-sho...

rgbrenner 12y ago
> I can't read anything by Larry Summers without thinking about this article from Naked Capitalism I'm no fan of Larry Summers, but that article was crap. He was there from 2001-2006, and in 2008 they lost a bunch of money.. which the article says is Summers fault. You know what Harvard said in 2007 about their fund [0]: Harvard University’s endowment earned a 23.0 percent return during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007. With FY07 being one of the best performance years since the inception of Harvard Management Company in 1974 ... In addition to significantly outpacing the University’s total return target, HMC significantly out-performed its internal benchmark. Furthermore, the fiscal 2007 performance compares favorably to that recorded by other large investment management institutions. Specifically, the endowment’s return of 23.0 percent out-performed the median for the 151 large institutional funds as measured by the Trust Universe Comparison Service (17.7 percent), as well as the 20.9 percent that marks the top 5 percentile. The fund posts record gains, but when the economy tanks and everyone loses money, at Harvard it's Summers fault. If he was as terrible as the article says, they had two years after he left to undo the damage he caused. Instead they waited until the recession hit, then unwound it. Actions speak louder than works (not to mention story telling after-the-fact when you need a scapegoat). http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/08/harvard-endowment-posts-strong-positive-return/ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/08/harvard-endowm... Edit: note that the gains in 2007 ($5B) were significantly more than the loses in 2008 ($2B) that summers supposedly caused. Since 2001, the fund nearly doubled(!): http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/09.26/06-endowment.html http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/09.26/06-endowment.html

kyllo 12y ago

TFA is correct that corruption and inequality are major hazards. But the greatest and most immediate threat is the real estate bubble, in my observation. There have been plenty of articles pointing out that the prices are unsustainably high and fueled by speculation and artificially cheap loans, and that the construction quality is terrible largely due to embezzlement. It's not a matter of if it all comes crashing down, but when.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Corruption and inequality caused much of the real estate bubble, however.
- kyllo 12y ago
  Arguably so, by way of crooked government officials making cheap capital and permits available to their friends in exchange for gifts and insider investment opportunities.

Mikeb85 12y ago

As far as I'm concerned, the world isn't optimistic enough about China. Yeah, growth has slowed (eventually it must, simply because of the law of big numbers). But data just came out today, 7.3% GDP growth for this quarter versus the same quarter last year. Slower than hoped for, but still very good. People may not have noticed, but China is already a consumer juggernaut. Lenovo is #1 in computer sales. Lenovo is the 3rd largest cell phone maker in the world (!!). And they've barely even closed the Motorola deal. Alibaba was the biggest IPO ever, and the Agricultural Bank of China was the second largest ever. When the Hong Kong-Shanghai stock connect goes live, they'll have the second largest stock exchange in the world. They're the largest market in the world for luxury goods. They have 1.3 billion people, the middle class is growing exponentially, and they're highly educated. People talk about innovation and talk about iPhones. China owns the solar business (so much that the US puts tariffs on Chinese solar companies), and invests more in clean technology than anyone. They've got some incredible technology companies and innovative industrials, even if none of it reaches our shores. The future belongs to China. You can say what you want about too much debt, overpriced real estate, manufacturing, etc..., but they'll figure that out. All one needs to do is visit China, see their markets, see the consumer goods and what's happening over there to know that they own the future.

hyperbovine 12y ago
The future of... conspicuously consuming luxury goods? Thanks but I'll pass. It's also not totally clear how sustainable the whole thought police thing is in the long-term. The larger and more educated is the middle class, the more of a problem it will become for them.
- icelancer 12y ago
  Why would the thought police situation cause economic collapse? If there's enough pressure, things will change. China already has changed politically quite a bit over the last 50 years.
- netcan 12y ago
  Conspicuous consumption is an interesting concept, but it's over used. Rolexes don't mean anything if everyone can afford one. The consumption of the middle classes has elements of all sorts non rational behavior, but dismissing people's economic motivations this way is disrespectful, especially people you don't know. Personally I see ambition, especially ambitious for the next generation as a healthy disposition. What it will be applied to will vary and change, but the ambition itself can build momentum.

mimighost 12y ago

Because...everyone else sucks badly. If China's 7.3% gdp growth is defined as slow and worrisome, what words would you pick for the situation in other places, such as Europe? However, it definitely has its own big problem, and if without proper handling, it will become a global scale crisis. Yes, we are talking about the housing bubble and a quickly aging population. At last, IMO, it is likely China is going to be yet another Japan, just bigger.

netcan 12y ago

Reporting that relates this directly to economics reads like a musing on some esoteric philosophy. It's economists' own fault, presenting their profession as a collection of mathematical models, the science of politics and history. Saying things like 'boost efficiency and competitiveness' sounds like a conversational reference to variables in an equation. The driving force behind economic growth over a measurable period of time (not quarters, or even years) is technology, in a wider sense of the word. Companies are an invention. Political structures and the stability or instability they cause is invention. Money itself was invented. China was economically suppressed for a long time. When they found their formula for industrialization they had a lot of catching up to do. Planting techniques that increased yield. Manufacturing techniques producing more. They spent 2 generations catching up. Catching up is a matter of applying existing technologies. When they created the weaving room of the world, industrial strength looms had existed for a long time. The reality is the growth at that end of the spectrum is fast. Growth nearer the recent invention end is slower, because invention and proliferation of technologies are intertwined. That's the main story here. China is approaching the point where they economic growth depends on technological advancement. Things need inventing. That's slower. Looking at this at the resolution of months, it seems that central bank policies are the engine of advancement. Financing, consumer appetites.. This is nonsense. Imagine the output of a country like Germany doubling or tripling of more over generations. That's what x% annual growth means. They will need to learn to make more with the same number of people. That can only happen because of technology. So, that's the default prediction. China's long term economic growth rate will slow to the rate of technological advancement, mitigated in the short term by politicized maneuvering. They are increasingly contributing to technology though so maybe they can move the world's output by a couple of ticks.

jayvanguard 12y ago

Shouldn't he be looking at empire level data e.g. the growth of the US economy over the past 100 years, the British Empire in the 1800s, or the Roman Empire at its height. No-one is saying Singapore or Cambodia is going to be the next world super power so how relevant is it to compare their 5 year growth spurts to what China is undergoing?

timtas 12y ago

Summers is most likely correct in his conclusions, but he is predictably wrong is his explanation of the cause. The end of crony system, he contends, will shift control to untested free market players, removing certainty of high performance that the corrupt system produced. Although we might object to central planning on cultural grounds, it has worked, and it's end will cause a fall. He's just as clueless the operation of boom-and-bust cycles in China as he is here in America. He thinks that GDP growth indicates performance instead simply activity, so no surprise he reads a downturn as caused by factors that damage performance. In China, as here, some GDP is good, and some destroys value and is thus unsustainable. The coming downturn in China will be the cure for malinvestment on an epic scale [1][2][3][4], not the disease. The crony system has generated massive amount of activity, most of it economically virtuous, but a great deal of it is economically evil, utter waste, and must be stopped and unwound. The longer the crony system persists, the bigger will be the reckoning. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-ghost-cities-in-2014-2014-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-ghost-cities-in-2014-2... [2] http://www.thebubblebubble.com/china-bubble/ http://www.thebubblebubble.com/china-bubble/ [3] http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/surprise-china-built-the-worlds-biggest-building-and-its-a-boondoggle http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/surprise-china-built-the-wor... [4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-politics-of-chinas-high-speed-train-wreck/2011/07/27/gIQAGedXdI_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-politics-of-china...