If both polls are right, the Chinese are pretty miserable now but they expect a dramatic turn for the better.

---

A recent Economist article has it that people in rich countries generally feel happier than those in poorer ones.

The Callup survey asked people to rate their happiness on a scale from null to ten. Finland emerged at the top of the list, with China at the bottom.

Yesterday I got the news from Jim; and today I got the message from DonkeyServer (DS) which reads,

Vagaa?

Mr. Lugdunum did not specify which “buggy” version this mod is, and now the speculation is that it is Vagaa. Of course, officially, Vagaa is not a “mod” (modification of eMule, or any other software); Vagaa claims to be a native Chinese software. As the block issue pushes this software to unprecedented public focus, it is also alleged to unify several vices in one, namely,

1. Pretending to be eMule to avoid being blocked; this is also the direct cause for DS’ reaction;
2. Aggressively searches the servers, causing them to suffer unnecessary heavy traffic, and hampering the fair use of others;
3. Upload only when it is downloading;
4. Built upon open source software Shareaza, but does not honor GPL and holds back its source code;
…

I am not sure about the later three, but I have tested the first point and proved that the claim is true.

The highlighted area is my user name in Vagaa:

For testing purpose I inserted [VeryCD] tag into my username in the official eMule v0.47a, but where is the [VeryCD] tag not shown in Vagaa? Vagaa hides it so that its users won't know there is something called VeryCD. What is even more malicious is that many of Vagaa's resources are copied from VeryCD.

Besides, I have found that Vagaa does upload, and upload without my permission; but I will not use it any more now that the test is done, so it is not an issue for me.

I have to point out that the outcome of the test is a complete proof that Vagaa = the “buggy” version, but since the moderator of Vagaa’s BBS shamelessly claims that heavy traffic is a problem of the server rather than the client (so that Vagaa did causes all the problems for the servers), it sounds reasonable to me that the allegation is veritable.

Vagaa Only?

Vagaa’s behavior has caused great concern over the Chinese P2P community. You may wish to read this post “The Latest Version Of Vagaa Fakes Itself As 0.47a !, That's the Mod which keeps abusing DonkeyServer and Bigbang!” because it gathers so many comments from Chinese users interacting with their foreign counterparts; but as some of the ideas in this thread are quite revealing, I would like to start my own discussion here.

Idea No. 1: Most Chinese users only know eMule and other P2P softwares as download tools. Sure. The first time I saw “eMule” on a web page I too thought of it as a download tool, but through using it, I gradually learnt how it functions. However, I also believe that many (or most) Chinese users do not know what eMule actually is, and as tools like Vagaa are extremely easy to use (and hard to configure), most of them would never get to know the nature of P2P. As I wrote in my last article, the Chinese as a people do not tend to think or learn these days. Today we usually forget the most we are told, and remember the rest, take them as maxims.

Idea No. 2: We are so good at exploiting loopholes. To save the face of Chinese users and to protect their due rights, in the thread I mentioned above, people tend to say that Vagaa is an exception; meanwhile Vagaa claims that any harm done to the servers is because of Vagaa’s new technology. Now these two facts combined, what seems to me to be Vagaa’s new technology is ruthless exploitation of some existing loopholes. A few days ago, Vagaa pretended to be some “eMule compact v0.4” or something, and after this identity was discovered and banned, Vagaa went on to use VeryCD’s name: is this what new technology is all about? Vagaa sends excessive requests to servers, which causes them to run sluggishly: is this what new technology is all about? And when I think of our new software, new books, new investment, I cannot help putting them into the same category with Vagaa. When it comes to creation, we are exceptionally good at the discovery of loopholes.

The Problem of Sharing

I am very upset about this Vagaa issue, and about all the bad names Chinese people are receiving. However, what seems to be a more serious concern is that P2P, and sharing (of files, softwares, books, etc.) is actually deficient in nature. I had this feeling when I was writing my last article on IPR; I got to understand that the GNU free softwares depends heavily on the idea of “freedom” and “community”, and to participate in such activities, such as open source software development and P2P file sharing, one have to share these ideas and beliefs. Unfortunately the “free rider” problem also arises, because this “community” system does not check on those who “takes” without “giving”. In open source this is not a grave matter yet, because presumably there are always some programmers who are willing to give, which will be enough to support the whole system; however, with P2P file sharing, this “take-’n’-hold-back” attitude can undermine the entire system, as the total amount of download must equal upload.

I genuinely wish that sharing and cooperating with a community style can work and will work, but the fact that they are based on some kind of “idea” and “belief” makes me skeptical, because ideas and beliefs cannot eliminate free riders who share within the system everything but these very ideas and beliefs. To get rid of free riders the system has either to kick them out or convert them in. I believe that no one likes conversion by force, so the system needs a way to screen them, and this is not easy. Donkeyserver is acting, and let us keep an eye on the outcome. Hopefully it will succeed.

---

Yesterday was a wonderful day, not only singing songs, but also dinning out with old schoolmates appeared to be particularly pleasant. Memories were washed free of dust, and future was discussed with a sunny mood. The differentiation of majors has already been obvious on us and we were talking about different things in different manners. During the long warm chat after dinner, Li Xuansong mentioned his discussion with his fellow schoolmates and teachers on the intellectual property rights specifically concerning softwares. His point was that only the source code (refer to

The Free Dictionary for more information) of the software is the legitimate object to be copyrighted; as for the program which is compiled from its source code (which through compilation becomes no longer obtainable to the buyers of the software), it is quite questionable whether the program (i.e. Microsoft Office) should be placed under the protection of copyright law.

“I was going to visit an old friend from Cornell, L. Pearce Williams, Professor Emeritus, History of Science and Technology, Cornell University. I had spent the previous several weeks searching library catalogs on the Internet for a copy of The Life of James Clerk Maxwell by Lewis Campbell and William Garnett. This book was first published in 1882 by MacMillan and Co. in London...I decided to give Pearce a call and he promptly volunteered his personal copy...he gave me a tour of one awesome personal library. He was busy, so our visit was brief. On the way home, I started thinking (always a dangerous thing to do!), if it took this much trouble to find this 100 year old biography today, how much trouble is it going to be, say, another hundred years from now?...Now that I have the book, why not scan the whole thing into the computer? Why not? Well, for one thing, it is well over 600 pages long. For another, I have a company to run. For a third, I have a family that needs attention. But then again, right now, I also have a window of opportunity to preserve this treasure for future generations. Even now, only a precious few people can get access to this book. A hundred years from now, the pages will be next to dust. It is now, or perhaps, never. So, on the way home, I bought a scanner and an extra 2 GByte hard drive...I started scanning the book the same day...All was finished by the end of February.”

This is the preface to the 1997 digital preservation of The Life of James Clerk Maxwell; this “I” is James C. Rautio.

Two months ago, I was looking for my life-inspirer because I felt a lack of energy in me, and I thought that Maxwell was a good one. Now the reading is suspended, because I have already got enough inspiration, and my time is limited indeed; looking back, I realize that this preface is really the thing that has impressed me most. Rautio was so resolute; compared to him, I seem too hesitant: I have spent so much time planning that on many occasions I have had not enough time to carry them out.

Why not now?

So I’ve promptly written down these words.

Haven't written for so long, for I've been busy with school works. As I am currently working on a so-called paper assigned by the International Trade teacher, I will try to make that paper accessible here (in order to press myself not to write too badly!)

The bad side is that it still doesn't look like a good paper; just that there's not much research in it...
The good side is that I still have the interest to explore in this direction, and clearly enough that there are a lot to explore :)
Here is a light-weight version...
Still, it is important for me, because this, together with the last article on comparative advantage (or the last two months or so, I should say) is a crucial turning point for me, as I am no longer a believer in free trade. I guess I like thinking more often now :)

---

Abstract: China has gradually become a world economic power; however its trade policies may need revising because up to now the country has relied too much on her cheap labor force and low-tech goods export. China cannot follow the classical Ricardian model of trade pattern because this by doing so a country will not advance technologically, which means China will remain a world manufacturer, and will have no chance to become a world economic leader. We use Japan as an example to examine how government intervention can break the Ricardian model of trade and lead the country to economical excellence. We then compare China with Japan, and find that China has the opportunity to follow a similar track and acquire a favorable competitive advantage.

Keywords: competitive advantage, China, Japan, international trade, trade policy

Simple Free Trade Is Not the Way

See my article: “Creating Comparative Advantage?”

Government Intervention Is Plausible

How can China alter her course? By jumping out of the old track definitely. If market cannot generate a satisfactory development plan for China, China will have to find it somewhere else; and that is the Government, because only the government has the power to intervene the market to achieve the desirable outcome. The problem is that the government may not be in the best position to make that decision. As theory goes, no matter how well-informed a government is, it does not have as much information as the market does, so it cannot make the right choices all the time. And whatever action the government takes, it cannot conduct it without causing some negative side effect, because it distorts the market. Therefore, the result of government intervention can be highly uncertain, which might greatly reduce the desirability and feasibility for its implementation. Still, the fact that international trade is both economical and political gives strong support for government intervention, and the rapid development of Japan in the 1980’s has showed us that it is possible for the government to make a good arrangement to shift the country’s original comparative advantage and promote its competitive advantage.

The controlling body of Japan’s international trade is the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), which was formerly known as the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). It was set up in 1949 with the purpose of revitalizing the post-war Japanese economy. MITI was the planner, it provided incentives and consultancies, exerting its influence on industrial decisions but never being dictatorial. At first glance MITI’s strategy looks very much like the infant industry protection approach; but the scope of MITI’s operations were much broader than the infant industry paradigm which “has traditionally been seen as a defensive response permitting a country to catch up in a sensitive area. As used by Japanese it has become the paradigm for a broad-scale industrial offensive^[i]”.

“MITI’s approach ran counter to the basic principles of modern international economics^[ii]”. However, Japan had largely succeeded in the 1970’s and 1980’s, and has since been a major economic power of the world, and the only one in Asia. It is an example of successful government intervention, which has accomplished what free trade could not bring to Japan. Yet, whether this success is replicable still needs investigation; in order to set Japan’s success story as a feasible example for China’s development today, we need to examine more closely what underpinned Japan’s economic achievement.

These conditions are:

Business Consent

Few Vested-interest Holders

Innovation Focused

Long-term Planning

Domestic Competition

The Right Trade Policy for China

Because China and Japan share many characteristics in economical and social terms, it can be helpful to judge China’s policy against Japanese ones; and then it is possible to identify the desirable competitive advantage and find the right course of China’s trade policy.

A big difference between China and Japan is that although both have adopted export-oriented policies, China’s internal market is weaker. If companies cannot even compete effectively at home, how can they do so in the global market? To deal with this problem, the Chinese government is in a place to assume the responsibility and facilitate the growth of domestic companies, and make them strong international players.

Therefore, the major policy shift should be made in the trade area where we used to do whatever we can to promote “cheap” export. The Chinese government should focus on the healthy development of the domestic market which then can serve as the basis for an export orientated economy, instead of placing too much weight directly on export itself and avoid the internal economic reform, which means withdrawing from the international market a bit to promote demand and competition at home.