Related News
Home » Opinion » Opinion Columns
Tortured logic tells frugal Chinese to 'spend hard, save hard'
By Wang Yong |
February 10, 2009, Tuesday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
THIS headline boggles the mind: "Spending hard while saving hard." That's what I came across yesterday, the headline for a Xinhua story dated January 26, the first day of the Chinese Lunar New Year.
The story, written in Chinese, opened with an ambiguous lead: "During the Spring Festival, consumers beat the 'winter of economic slowdown' with spending as hot as fire. Chinese people who are used to saving hard are beginning to spend hard to show their patriotic passion. However, people haven't abandoned their good tradition of saving hard in their new-found shopping spree."
There's no translation error here. Trust me. Xinhua reporter Lai Jianqiang, author of the headlined article, believes that you can spend fervently and still be called frugal.
In an interview with the Financial Times in London on February 1, Premier Wen Jiabao dismissed the slogan of "active consumption is patriotic" as simplistic: "Whether and how much people spend ultimately depends on whether they have money to buy the right products, not on a simplistic slogan."
Sober as Premier Wen is, many reporters and local officials still mislead the public with the simplistic slogan that buy-buy-buy consumption will save the nation and planet, even if we buy rubbish.
On January 12, the Outlook Weekly came forward with the slogan of "active consumption is patriotic." On the same day, a senior government official in Hefei, capital of Anhui Province, said in a televised speech that "buying a condo is patriotic." Similar views still abound today.
To be sure, "spending hard while saving hard" somehow tones down the blunter slogans by reaffirming China's traditional virtue of frugality.
One example cited in the January 26 Xinhua story was exactly about the virtue of frugality, but the reporter mistook it for an example of "spending hard while saving hard."
It was about a man in Fuzhou, Fujian Province, joining a group purchasing plan to buy flowers at a discount during the Spring Festival.
Flowers for home decoration are a must for many locals. Buying at a discount is about frugality, not active consumption. It might have counted as such if residents had suddenly decided to buy flowers this year as they had never done before.
More befuddling is this example from the article. Yan Quanwen, a civil servant in Xiamen, Fujian Province, said he forked out 3,000 yuan (US$439) for a new suit in a spontaneous shopping spree during the Spring Festival. He said he indulged because he was "unwittingly yet deeply influenced by the crowd engrossed in shopping" while he was strolling around.
That was an example of irrational spending, spending on an urge of emotion, not of need. Do we praise such consumption behavior as "patriotic?"
The fallacy
Jiefang Daily published a commentary yesterday to debunk the myth of "patriotic consumption": "No one says you're patriotic if you eat more." The signed commentary further says:
"The current round of over-supply stems largely from unreasonable product structure and prices. For example, young people in big cities have lots of money and yet they still cannot afford a condo, while real estate developers have hoarded lots of apartments (but don't have a market)."
Indeed, the biggest fallacy of the slogan of "active consumption is patriotic" is its failure to define "active consumption" in the first place.
No one denies the proper role of consumption in economic growth. China consumed least in the 1950s and 1960s, as many food items were rationed. But that has changed.
In 2007, China's GDP grew by 11.4 percent, of which 4.4 percent came from domestic consumption, 4.3 percent from investment and 2.7 percent from exports.
The proper question to ask now is: "What's wrong with our consumption pattern?" rather than "Consumption is patriotic, isn't it?"
I had a haircut yesterday. The barber could tell from my accent that I wasn't a Shanghai native, so he asked: "Have you bought an apartment?"
"No, I can't afford one."
"You've rented one?"
"Yes, 4,500 yuan a month."
"Well, laojigun (very expensive in Shanghai dialect)!" he exclaimed, a short bark of laughter.
Laojigun indeed. If active consumption of whatever were patriotic, wouldn't I be a "martyr" already by living under such an expensive roof?
Covering a city with speculative housing projects won't create sustainable demand however hard you sell the concept of "spending hard."
The story, written in Chinese, opened with an ambiguous lead: "During the Spring Festival, consumers beat the 'winter of economic slowdown' with spending as hot as fire. Chinese people who are used to saving hard are beginning to spend hard to show their patriotic passion. However, people haven't abandoned their good tradition of saving hard in their new-found shopping spree."
There's no translation error here. Trust me. Xinhua reporter Lai Jianqiang, author of the headlined article, believes that you can spend fervently and still be called frugal.
In an interview with the Financial Times in London on February 1, Premier Wen Jiabao dismissed the slogan of "active consumption is patriotic" as simplistic: "Whether and how much people spend ultimately depends on whether they have money to buy the right products, not on a simplistic slogan."
Sober as Premier Wen is, many reporters and local officials still mislead the public with the simplistic slogan that buy-buy-buy consumption will save the nation and planet, even if we buy rubbish.
On January 12, the Outlook Weekly came forward with the slogan of "active consumption is patriotic." On the same day, a senior government official in Hefei, capital of Anhui Province, said in a televised speech that "buying a condo is patriotic." Similar views still abound today.
To be sure, "spending hard while saving hard" somehow tones down the blunter slogans by reaffirming China's traditional virtue of frugality.
One example cited in the January 26 Xinhua story was exactly about the virtue of frugality, but the reporter mistook it for an example of "spending hard while saving hard."
It was about a man in Fuzhou, Fujian Province, joining a group purchasing plan to buy flowers at a discount during the Spring Festival.
Flowers for home decoration are a must for many locals. Buying at a discount is about frugality, not active consumption. It might have counted as such if residents had suddenly decided to buy flowers this year as they had never done before.
More befuddling is this example from the article. Yan Quanwen, a civil servant in Xiamen, Fujian Province, said he forked out 3,000 yuan (US$439) for a new suit in a spontaneous shopping spree during the Spring Festival. He said he indulged because he was "unwittingly yet deeply influenced by the crowd engrossed in shopping" while he was strolling around.
That was an example of irrational spending, spending on an urge of emotion, not of need. Do we praise such consumption behavior as "patriotic?"
The fallacy
Jiefang Daily published a commentary yesterday to debunk the myth of "patriotic consumption": "No one says you're patriotic if you eat more." The signed commentary further says:
"The current round of over-supply stems largely from unreasonable product structure and prices. For example, young people in big cities have lots of money and yet they still cannot afford a condo, while real estate developers have hoarded lots of apartments (but don't have a market)."
Indeed, the biggest fallacy of the slogan of "active consumption is patriotic" is its failure to define "active consumption" in the first place.
No one denies the proper role of consumption in economic growth. China consumed least in the 1950s and 1960s, as many food items were rationed. But that has changed.
In 2007, China's GDP grew by 11.4 percent, of which 4.4 percent came from domestic consumption, 4.3 percent from investment and 2.7 percent from exports.
The proper question to ask now is: "What's wrong with our consumption pattern?" rather than "Consumption is patriotic, isn't it?"
I had a haircut yesterday. The barber could tell from my accent that I wasn't a Shanghai native, so he asked: "Have you bought an apartment?"
"No, I can't afford one."
"You've rented one?"
"Yes, 4,500 yuan a month."
"Well, laojigun (very expensive in Shanghai dialect)!" he exclaimed, a short bark of laughter.
Laojigun indeed. If active consumption of whatever were patriotic, wouldn't I be a "martyr" already by living under such an expensive roof?
Covering a city with speculative housing projects won't create sustainable demand however hard you sell the concept of "spending hard."
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
