Home
News
In Focus
Business
Metro
Nation
World
Sports
Feature
Opinion
View more »Opinion Columns
Wan LixinOpinion deputy editor of Shanghai Daily
Forum emphasizes BRI cooperation between China and Arab countries
Rights to lower sleeper berths should be softened by empathy for fellow passengers
Sunday
- Subscribe
Related News
Home » Opinion » Opinion Columns
Raising a stink over poor people's potties
By Wang Yong |
March 24, 2009, Tuesday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
A RENOWNED Chinese economist has raised a stink ire since he suggested in his blog on March 11 that low-cost housing for the poor should have no private toilets, only communal potties.
"Rich folks won't want to buy such apartments," wrote 80-year-old Mao Yushi who helped found the Unirule Institute of Economics in 1993. His pottie proposal is a response to the unscrupulous actions of some rich and influential people who buy cheap apartments intended exclusively for the poor.
Angry Netizens were quick to inveigh against Mr Mao, calling him an advocate of discrimination against the poor.
One Netizen said: "Are you telling the world that this is all about socialism with Chinese characteristics? Do you mean our revolutionary martyrs shed their blood just to create a society where the poor deserve nothing but a room without a private toilet?"
Another Netizen said: "People like Mr Mao have morality. They just seem to have read more theories than us."
A third Netizen lamented with resignation: "How civilization has gone backward. You hardly ever hear of a room without a private toilet only for the poor, even in the US or Europe."
To be fair, Mr Mao was not all wrong.
Read between the lines of his blog article and you will see clearly that he came up with the controversial proposal out of genuine dislike of those with money who would grab up low-cost housing through policy loopholes or bribes.
Indeed, in another article, Mr Mao scathingly criticized one of his own friends who had abused his official power to buy a cheap apartment for himself.
He said his official-friend earned a lot more than any poor soul for whom the cheap apartment was exclusively intended and built.
But Mr Mao's fallacy lies in his ingenuous belief in the "invisible hand" of market forces to set things right. He naively believes that rich people would not buy a flat without a toilet, either for personal consumption (or that of their relatives) or for speculation.
As urbanization roars ahead, hundreds of millions of farmers have abandoned their land to swell the already-stretched cities, seeking work, food and shelter. The demand for cheap apartments is inelastic for the forseable future, whether there's a private toilet or not.
An economist of really good conscience should think hard about how to help those migrant workers live better in their drifting life in a city, rather than to stigmatize them with lower status and deprive them of a private toilet.
"Some say it's discrimination against the poor to provide them an apartment without a toilet. It certainly is," said Mr Mao in another blog article posted yesterday. "A market economy works precisely against the poor. Money does everything, and nothing is done without it. A market economy knows no man but money."
A big favor?
As if he sensed something wrong with this statement, he added: "The lower construction standard for a cheap apartment is surely a bias against the poor, but it's a help and favor to them as well."
The situation couldn't be more baffling. You first raise the housing prices to drive the poor out of comfortable rooms, and then throw them into poorer corners and tell them you've done them a big favor.
Mr Mao has not called himself a "neoliberal" who advocates unfettered freedom of the market, of trade and of the individual, but in a blog article posted in July 2006, he ardently defended what he called "economic liberalism."
In that article, he tried in vain to reconcile a person's innate push for profits and the acquired wish to treat whoever deals with him as a brother or sister.
He said: "In economic liberalism marked by equality and freedom, an entrepreneur will never make 1 million yuan without letting his counterpart earn more or less the same."
If there ever were such a liberal economy, there would have been no income gap, or at least not a big gap. And yet Mr Mao told us in his article posted yesterday that "a market economy works precisely against the poor."
Going back to a centrally planned economy is unrealistic for China, but Western neo-liberalism, or whatever liberalism, has proved a broken reed, too.
Mr Mao said: "Although China has witnessed a widening income gap since reform and opening up, there's hardly anyone starving today. That's something never achieved in China's thousands of years of history."
That's true. But barely half a century ago, there was almost no family who drifted about as migrants without a roof of its own.
Don't forget Marxism has ruled China and it will continue to be the guide in the future. It's time we treated our poor migrant brothers as true brothers. Let there be private potties for the poor.
"Rich folks won't want to buy such apartments," wrote 80-year-old Mao Yushi who helped found the Unirule Institute of Economics in 1993. His pottie proposal is a response to the unscrupulous actions of some rich and influential people who buy cheap apartments intended exclusively for the poor.
Angry Netizens were quick to inveigh against Mr Mao, calling him an advocate of discrimination against the poor.
One Netizen said: "Are you telling the world that this is all about socialism with Chinese characteristics? Do you mean our revolutionary martyrs shed their blood just to create a society where the poor deserve nothing but a room without a private toilet?"
Another Netizen said: "People like Mr Mao have morality. They just seem to have read more theories than us."
A third Netizen lamented with resignation: "How civilization has gone backward. You hardly ever hear of a room without a private toilet only for the poor, even in the US or Europe."
To be fair, Mr Mao was not all wrong.
Read between the lines of his blog article and you will see clearly that he came up with the controversial proposal out of genuine dislike of those with money who would grab up low-cost housing through policy loopholes or bribes.
Indeed, in another article, Mr Mao scathingly criticized one of his own friends who had abused his official power to buy a cheap apartment for himself.
He said his official-friend earned a lot more than any poor soul for whom the cheap apartment was exclusively intended and built.
But Mr Mao's fallacy lies in his ingenuous belief in the "invisible hand" of market forces to set things right. He naively believes that rich people would not buy a flat without a toilet, either for personal consumption (or that of their relatives) or for speculation.
As urbanization roars ahead, hundreds of millions of farmers have abandoned their land to swell the already-stretched cities, seeking work, food and shelter. The demand for cheap apartments is inelastic for the forseable future, whether there's a private toilet or not.
An economist of really good conscience should think hard about how to help those migrant workers live better in their drifting life in a city, rather than to stigmatize them with lower status and deprive them of a private toilet.
"Some say it's discrimination against the poor to provide them an apartment without a toilet. It certainly is," said Mr Mao in another blog article posted yesterday. "A market economy works precisely against the poor. Money does everything, and nothing is done without it. A market economy knows no man but money."
A big favor?
As if he sensed something wrong with this statement, he added: "The lower construction standard for a cheap apartment is surely a bias against the poor, but it's a help and favor to them as well."
The situation couldn't be more baffling. You first raise the housing prices to drive the poor out of comfortable rooms, and then throw them into poorer corners and tell them you've done them a big favor.
Mr Mao has not called himself a "neoliberal" who advocates unfettered freedom of the market, of trade and of the individual, but in a blog article posted in July 2006, he ardently defended what he called "economic liberalism."
In that article, he tried in vain to reconcile a person's innate push for profits and the acquired wish to treat whoever deals with him as a brother or sister.
He said: "In economic liberalism marked by equality and freedom, an entrepreneur will never make 1 million yuan without letting his counterpart earn more or less the same."
If there ever were such a liberal economy, there would have been no income gap, or at least not a big gap. And yet Mr Mao told us in his article posted yesterday that "a market economy works precisely against the poor."
Going back to a centrally planned economy is unrealistic for China, but Western neo-liberalism, or whatever liberalism, has proved a broken reed, too.
Mr Mao said: "Although China has witnessed a widening income gap since reform and opening up, there's hardly anyone starving today. That's something never achieved in China's thousands of years of history."
That's true. But barely half a century ago, there was almost no family who drifted about as migrants without a roof of its own.
Don't forget Marxism has ruled China and it will continue to be the guide in the future. It's time we treated our poor migrant brothers as true brothers. Let there be private potties for the poor.
- 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.
