Beijing residents line up for nucleic acid testing for the new coronavirus. (January 22, 2021)
The outbreak of the novel coronavirus (CCP), also known as the Wuhan pneumonia outbreak, in China and the resulting global catastrophe is believed to be caused by the information blockade and misleading propaganda of the Chinese Communist authorities. Among the world’s major economies, the Communist Party’s economic response to the Epidemic has been “unique. Some critics say that the Chinese authorities, led by Xi Jinping, have been very generous in providing aid to foreign countries, even gaining a reputation for “throwing money around,” but have been very stingy in providing aid to the Chinese people affected by the epidemic. Why is the Communist Party unable to provide the Chinese people with the immediate relief they so desperately need? Various parties have offered different versions of this question.
China contrasts sharply with other major economies
Some commentators and observers have suggested that one of the reasons the CCP’s failure to deliver much-needed direct aid to the Chinese people has received so much attention both within China and internationally is that Xi Jinping himself and the CCP propaganda apparatus he controls have repeatedly and vigorously promoted the idea since he came to power in 2012 that he is most concerned about “the needy people, how they are fed and how they are housed. “. However, while millions and even hundreds of millions of Chinese people are having problems with Food and shelter, he does not seem to be concerned or care about their difficulties.
At the same Time, while millions, if not hundreds of millions of Chinese people are in distress due to the epidemic, the Chinese government is showing care, consideration and eagerness to assist foreign countries and foreigners.
When one searches for the Chinese keywords “UK, epidemic, aid” using Google, the most common international Internet search engine, one can see that the top search results include.
–UK to aid businesses suspended under epidemic
–UK economy: Chancellor to launch more financial aid measures to support businesses hit by the epidemic
–Epidemic Briefing: UK to give additional £4.6bn aid to businesses hit by embargo measures
Using Google’s Chinese keywords “Germany, epidemic, aid”, one can see that the top search results include.
–Germany plans to subsidize SMEs up to 50,000 euros per month
–German federal government’s aid measures to combat the new pandemic
–Germany prepares to extend and expand the economic stimulus after being accused of having too high a threshold for applying for aid programs
A Google search for the Chinese keywords “Japan, epidemic, aid” shows that the top search results include.
–Japan’s new crown epidemic aid only given to top students
–(China) Foreign Ministry answers questions on whether China is prepared to provide support or assistance in the case of the epidemic in Japan
–Chinese aid arranged for Japan’s epidemic emergency!
Using Google’s Chinese keywords “China, epidemic, aid”, one can see that the top search results include.
–Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The Chinese government has provided or is providing material assistance to 127 countries and 4 international organizations
–China has sent a “ray of hope” to the global war effort.
–China has organized and implemented assistance to 89 countries and 4 international organizations to fight the epidemic
Google search results like this one clearly show that compared to major economies like the UK, Germany and Japan, the Chinese government under Xi Jinping stands out for its eagerness to provide aid to foreign countries rather than to its own when it comes to epidemic assistance.
Is sending all the money basically the same as not sending any money?
As the 100-year epidemic rages on, the Chinese government’s enthusiasm for foreign aid and its stinginess in refusing to provide direct assistance to the people, compared to the world’s major economies that are providing direct assistance to the people, has not only drawn a lot of comment from Chinese observers outside the country, but also complaints from the public at Home.
Some observers argue that no media outlet is willing or brave enough to report the complaints and anger of the Chinese public in a country where “presumptuous discussion of the central government” is forbidden and the consequences of violating it are unpredictable, but these complaints, ignored by the official media, were apparently loud enough to elicit a reaction from Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of the Global Times, a tabloid owned by the People’s Daily, the central organ of the Chinese Communist Party. Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of the Global Times, a tabloid owned by the People’s Daily, an organ of the Communist Party.
On Jan. 28, Hu Xijin posted via Sina Weibo, “The manifestations of the damage (caused by the new coronary epidemic) will be manifold, one of which is that some prices will rise and there may also be general Inflation. I believe this will be the case in most parts of the world, China’s GDP was still positive last year anyway, and there are certainly many countries that are in a much worse situation than China. There are countries that pay everyone, but that belongs to coaxing everyone, all pay is basically the same as none pay.”
Hu Xijin’s tweet touches on a taboo subject in China today, which is that there are other countries that provide direct aid to people suffering from the epidemic. Hu Xijin’s microblog post has provoked strong reactions and reactions among Chinese netizens, a topic that the Chinese Communist authorities and the media under their control have deliberately avoided since the outbreak.
Many netizens criticized Hu Xijin for his obvious sophistry, with some retorting, “Is asking to pay taxes basically the same as asking not to pay taxes? Is asking for patriotism basically the same as asking for non-patriotism? Asking for cooperation in epidemic prevention is the same as asking for no cooperation at all?”
Gao Yu, a retired veteran Chinese journalist, said Hu Xijin’s statement is clearly a condescending statement that does not care about the lives of the people; for the many people in China who have lost their livelihoods due to the epidemic and have nothing to eat or drink, it is clearly necessary and urgent to receive direct assistance in the amount of a thousand yuan.
It’s Life-saving money,” says Gao Yu. For the rich, it’s not even the icing on the cake. Now (China’s rich and powerful), they are all very big money. Billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions, right? They don’t need a thousand bucks of aid money. But for the poor, it’s life-saving money. Especially during the epidemic, it is definitely a blessing in the snow.”
Experts analyze the misleading nature of Hu Xijin’s remarks
Xie Tian, a professor at the Aiken School of Business at the University of South Carolina, said it is unfortunate that Hu Xijin is considered by many Chinese to be a hawk and dog of the Chinese Communist Party authorities, always taking the lead for the highest authorities in the Communist Party and saying for them what the authorities themselves are too embarrassed to say directly; it is precisely what the authorities are too embarrassed to say to provide direct disaster relief assistance to the people, so Hu Xijin said it; but what Hu Xijin said has some elements that can But what Hu Xijin said has some elements that can be deceptive, so it needs to be taken seriously.
Professor Xie Tian said, “He (Hu Xijin) is actually stealing the theory of universal income from some countries. In a normal country, if everyone is given money in normal times, all people’s income will increase, and prices will rise, and inflation will occur, just as if no money is given. In a normal country, there is no work stoppage caused by the plague, and in the case of full employment, a general handout would have this possibility.”
Professor Xie Tian points out that Hu Xijin is clearly playing a fish-eye trick. He said, “China’s current situation is not full employment; China’s industrial chain has shifted outward, resulting in more laid-off workers in enterprises. I saw a recent statistic that 120 million people are unemployed in China. In this case, with not full employment and normal economic development at all, the plague has caused 120 million people to be completely unemployed, and their savings are slowly depleting, and it is very necessary to give them money at this time.”
In Professor Xie Tian’s opinion, another foolish trick played by Hu Xijin is to imply that developed countries and democracies are blindly and universally peppering aid to the people, but developed countries and democracies are not at all the kind of fools that Hu Xijin implies, but rather design and implement direct economic aid to the people with specific objectives in mind, the purpose of which is to rescue the people who need the aid most and businesses
Taiwan‘s approach in this regard is considered by Professor Xie Tian to be among the best. He said, “The government of the Republic of China in Taiwan knows that if it gives out money many people may save it. Taiwan needs to give out money to help people, but also to help small businesses, to help business. If people save their money after giving out money, those small business enterprises will not get it. Taiwan will issue shopping vouchers and consumer vouchers to help the poor as well as small businesses. I think Taiwan is doing the best.”
Meanwhile, in the U.S., since the outbreak, the U.S. federal government has twice given direct relief payments to the public, and both direct cash relief payments have been targeted to help low-income people as the primary relief target.
Take the most recent cash relief distribution last December as an example. The U.S. government’s distribution criteria are: couples with adjusted gross income below $150,000 per year can receive $1,200 in relief, and then the amount of relief they can receive gradually decreases as their income rises, reducing the amount of relief they can receive to zero for couples with adjusted gross income above $174,000 per year. Married couples can also receive an additional $600 for each child under 17 years of age.
Recent Comments