Or most recently, when China decided to unveil Green Dam, the software that is theoretically designed to stop kids from seeing porn, but which critics have argued in fact is a political tool that blocks websites deemed sensitive. Meanwhile, Google is getting the blame for “corrupting” the country’s youth, even though Baidu has just as much access to porn. The big difference? On Google you have the option of a “Safe Search” function, which should weed out porn. On Baidu? Since China doesn’t acknowledge that porn could show up, there’s no way to opt out/in. A cynical person might say that blaming Google is an attempt to deflect attention away from Green Dam (incidentally, not the best timing to unroll a censorship tool called “Green” just as Iran’s revolution is symbolized by the same color. Not sure what to make of this, but it called be good. And while I’m getting off on a tangent, I always thought that porn was “yellow” in China, not green. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Back to the normal rant.)

So what is the solution to all of these butchered policies? Well, Cup of Cha has a cup of advice: China should hire one intern from any of the major public relations companies in Beijing. Every time the government comes up with a big initiative, it should ask Bobby the intern, “Hey, is this a good idea?” Think of him as the policeman of common sense. “Hey Bobby, think it’s a good idea to give a multi-million dollar contract to a censorship company that no one has ever heard of and is so clearly stealing the software from the US that it, in fact, looks for updates on a server in California? No? Hmmm…maybe we hire 10,000 internet police instead.”

Seriously, is there any first day PR intern who would not have recognized that, at the very least, Green Dam would need to be rolled out more carefully than it was?

This is a problem with a country without democracy. Officials never have to face the voters, so there is a certain lack of PR savvy that sets in. It’s hardly like democracy stops people from being idiots. See Rod Blagoevich, Elliot Spitzer, Michelle Bachman or any Italian official. However, normally people are a little more careful and at least have their PR disasters privately for as long as possible. In China, usually there is no recognition that perhaps foolish decisions should be kept out of the spotlight.

And that is why China needs Bobby the intern. Bobby, a sophomore at Emory who is interning at a Beijing PR firm for the summer is the answer to all of China’s public blunders.

And yet, with all of the changes that have taken place, there are still some odd remnants of an economy from years gone by that no longer exists. Cash, for example, is still overwhelmingly the preferred type of payment. While you see many more domestic credit cards and bank transfers these days, the overwhelming majority of daily commerce is still done with cash, particularly outside of the three biggest cities. And this doesn’t just go for your local 鸡蛋饼, either. I’ve had landlords who prefer to receive months of payments at a time in cash. You still see people making down payments on apartments in cash. Hell, when I lived in Chengdu, they used to pay my monthly salary in cash. Sadly it fit in a money clip fairly easily.

Now, all of this would be fine, except for one problem. The government has had the foresight to change economic policy drastically in 1979, gradually float the currency to avoid crisis and dissolve, sell or drastically change the structure of state-owned enterprises. And yet, it hasn’t occurred to anyone yet that perhaps it’s time to start printing a bill larger than the hundred.

This, my friends makes no sense at all. It would be tough enough putting a downpayment on a house with US hundreds. Imagine doing it with a bunch of $15 dollar bills. This is really the craziest most out of date anachronism I’ve ever heard of. It makes my life painful, and it makes everything seem more expensive. For example, if you buy a computer, most people hand over stacks of cash. That has to be a disincentive to making big purchases. It just feels like you’re spending a fortune.

The one argument I’ve heard for the hundred being the biggest bill is that it is a deterrent to corruption and the underground economy. If you have a trunk full of case, there’s not much you can do with it.

But that seems like a weak case to keep the rest of us miserable. There’s a restaurant in Baoli Dasha where the coffee is RMB 128. That’s right, there is no bill in China that can cover a single cup of overpriced coffee. That’s preposterous.

So if China is really going to promote consumer spending, I have one simple piece of advice: print larger denominations of currency.

There are two schools of thought about what has changed in the 20 years since. The first argument is that China totally opened up its economy in the aftermath of being shunned by most of the world, transforming it into the modern and vibrant country it is today. The second argument is one a Chinese friend told me, to my great surprise. After hearing that Twitter was blocked, he said, “You know, China is just like North Korea now. Well, not the same, but this kind of policy seems the same.”

So the question becomes: has China opened and modernized over the last 20 years, or is it still saddled with a big brother mindset? As you might imagine, the answer is yes. Both are quite clearly true.

And here is the irony of modern China. It would be impossible to label a country that has about 100,000 foreigners living in its capital city, allows discussion boards and access to most websites a “Hermit Kingdom.” It’s just not accurate. Most people can walk wherever they want, whenever they want. You can discuss pretty much anything with friends, even in a crowded restaurant. At the same time, there are about three topics that you need to be careful about (tanks, Tibet and Taiwan). You can’t read the Huffington Post or watch YouTube. Reports I heard said that there were hundreds of plain clothes police in and around the square today. It is extremely open and yet oddly closely. Both of these realities are simultaneously true.

And this is why there are such muddled ideas about China. It has one foot clearly 20 years ahead of the world curve, but another remains jammed in the door that hasn’t yet fully opened.

I’m not sure where we go from here. In the American model, often we see change coming in the form of new waves of politicians. It bubbles up from non-establishment figures, often unexpectedly. We moved from malaise to Reagonomics because a politician came out and spoke directly to the people. And we moved from Bush, Clinton, Bush, to Obama, because he came out and seized an opportunity that no one gave him. It’s the same thing on the issues in America. George Will has pointed out that it doesn’t really matter where people stand on gay marriage because it’s a generational issue. If you’re under 35, odds are pretty good you don’t object. Do the math and it’s just a matter of time before it becomes and overwhelming majority of the population.

But in China, the leaders are often chosen because they do not have ideas terribly different from the previous generation. Sure, Deng Xiaoping broke the mold, taking the country in an entirely new direction (twice), but I’m not sure a politician like that can rise to the top anymore (particularly after the events of 20 years ago). So is the country doomed to incremental change on all fronts (or  significant change on some and virtually none on the others)? I don’t know. There’s no model to look at.

So, 20 years later, the question remains: what kind of a country is China today?

But surely Twitter couldn’t ruin a good autocracy, right? Those annoying one sentence blasts that usually link to something more interesting (or not). Surely that can’t threaten the Chinese way of life, right? Or not.

Apparently, fearing that people could express ideas that could undermine the stability of China in under 140 characters, the country has blocked Twitter. (Incidentally, that last sentence was too long to tweet.) In a painful irony, Cup of Cha had only recently figured out the wonders of such an idiotic service (mostly that I could put much less time into maintaining an online identity that has thus far yielded me little more than the unexpected wrath of Celine Dion fans). That’s right, it was on this past Sunday that I launched the glorious Tweet of Cha. And I had spent most of my time reading hilarious DPRK tweets (long story short: they’re real press releases but someone else is posting them).

In another irony, the last blog post that I wrote (and didn’t publish) was about how ridiculous it is that China seems concerned that YouTube will tear the country down. I now feel compelled to post it and backdate it. Not sure why I have to backdate it, but dagnabit, I will.

I was going to write a bunch more about how China should want people to waste their time doing stupid crap, but I already did in my previously unpublished post.

Nothing like a really dumb policy to get me back on the Cup.

From my distorted American point of view, it seems to me like YouTube is exactly what you want if there are any concerns about governmental legitimacy. Let’s look at the Bush years. Do you really think a guy who used to complain that people were ignoring his single great accomplishment (the supposedly strong economy), but left office in the midst of the biggest economic disaster since 20 years before his grandfather began to serve in the Senate really wanted people to examine him with highly focused concentration?

Of course not! It’s not a coincidence that Bush won election and re-election during a period of eight years when Friends, Survivor and American Idol were the top shows six of the years? On the contrary, I’m pretty sure Cheney created these shows (and 24!!) to distract and make the American population dumber. I’m pretty sure they were hoping Punk’d would become a bigger hit, as this would have furthered the cause quite well.

Meanwhile, on the internet,s YouTube and AmIHotorNot were taking off. But things changed. By the 2008 election, Politico and RealClearPolitics were big hits on the internet. Get it? AmIHotorNot.com=Bush in office. Politico=Obama. Safe to say people being more focused on an election than a newscaster fainting, is not good for leaders trying to hide things.

And this brings us back to China and YouTube. I understand that there are tough economic times now. And I know that there are plenty of delicate anniversaries this year. Leaders are cautious. They don’t know what might set people off. But I assure you, having people watching cats throwing up is definitely better than having them asking questions about difficult political matters.

So buck down China, and give us back our wonderfully inane clips. After all, the less time people spend at the FT site, the better for you.

To me, after the cold, dry, bleak winter, this is a very welcome sign. Yet, for every wonderful turn of events, there is always a negative side. In the case of Beijing spring, being able to sit outside on plastic chairs and eat on crappy folding table far outweighs the negatives. At the same time, the oddities of Beijing spring require a closer look.

These are observations, not complaints, mind you. The strange happenings of Beijing spring are indeed bizarre, and they come in waves. So, in the spirit of Passover, I give you the 10 plagues of Beijing spring. Many of them repeat every year, a few are unique to 2009.

1. Those weird white fluffy things flying through the air. What are these things and how do they get so high? I’ve looked at the window from the 20th floor of office buildings and it looks like it’s snowing. Even in areas with no plant life. They blanketed the city last weekend, and now they are gone. Figures.
2. Gnats. Let’s just say I make sure to keep my mouth shut while biking in spring.
3. Dust storms. There’s nothing quite like looking out the window and thinking, “Are rain clouds usually red?”
4. 4:30AM sunrises.
5. Ritan Park stench. You know what I’m talking about. They drain that pond in Ritan Park and it stinks something awful for two weeks at a time. Those are not fun times at the Stone Boat.
6. Return of gray skies. Remember how the sky was blue all winter? It’s like they’ve decided most of the Olympics reporters are finally gone and they can stop spray painting the air blue.
7. Another spring, another day removed from the May Holiday. This year we get three days off. But two are on a weekend. That’s messed up.
8. Children’s Day. My understanding is that kids don’t work, pay taxes or have any responsibilities. Good thing there’s a day when they can get out from under all of that stress and get pampered by their doting parents. Few countries spoil their kids more than in the US, but we don’t celebrate Children’s Day.
9. Realization that the Olympics aren’t coming back. On the up side, foreigners can get visas this year.
10. The impending return of the old-man-tank-top-roll-up-over-the-beer-gut moments. Actually, this is a positive development.

That pretty much sums up the weirdness of Beijing spring. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go outside and make a Mongolian-sand castle.

I get that there is a lot of downside to being overly dependent on a single currency–especially dollars right now. I similarly understand that China is really worried that the country has pursued an export-based growth strategy that has left it hugely over-leveraged in US dollars. It is now stuck in the situation where leadership would love to diversify, but failing to continue buying dollars at a fast rate would leave open the possibility that the value might fall. The result would be huge reserves of money with diminishing worth.

From this perspective, I get why China is interested in reducing the importance of dollars as the international de facto currency. Of course, I also understand why people don’t want English to be the official international, and instead would prefer to use a super language. You may remember that there was, in fact, a move toward an international language that everyone could use. It was called Esperanto. And aside from one guy I met in Xinjiang a few years back, no one in the world uses it anymore.

It is quite easy to explain why China’s proposed Esperanto Bucks are no more useful than the original Esperanto language. A universal language s0unds great in theory, but you have to teach people to use it. Plus, you need to reach critical mass. People study French and Chinese than Latvian because more people speak French and Chinese than Latvian. The problem is prevalent in all parts of life. I bought a mini-disc player in 2000 because I figured everyone would be using them. Let’s just say that the iPod reduced its usefulness.

With a new currency, there has to be some inherent belief that everyone will buy into it. If China wants to buy trillions of spacebucks, that’s fine, but I’ll pretty happy to keep my money in dollars. Or Euros. Or Yen. And therein lies the problem. You can’t convince people that Esperanto Bucks are the new world currency unless someone believes in them. With dollars, everyone believes in them because they are accepted everywhere. North Korea counterfeits them, for crying out loud. Even countries that hate America still believe in its currency.

The other obvious problem with China’s idea is that many of the problems that its leadership now confronts relate to the country’s aversion to floating the Renminbi. There is no particular reason why China has to or should inherently float its currency, but there are real repercussions in not doing so. Specifically, in order to target an exchange rate, policy needs to back up that goal. In this case, that means buying huge amounts of dollars, and to a lesser extent, Euros, to ensure that their isn’t too much upward pressure on the Renminbi.

Just as the US is dealing with many of the problems that have emerged from a decade of over-leveraging, so too is China. But the proposed path forward makes very little sense. In fact, the flawed logic of such a system is clear in the opening paragraph of Mr. Zhou’s initial statement:

…what kind of international reserve currency do we need to secure global financial stability and facilitate world economic growth, which was one of the purposes for establishing the IMF? There were various institutional arrangements in an attempt to find a solution, including the Silver Standard, the Gold Standard, the Gold Exchange Standard and the Bretton Woods system.

All of these systems collapsed. The Gold Standard, which was the one that lasted the longest, essentially limited the viability of monetary policy and the total amount of currency in the world, regardless of population expansion. But the most similar system to the one Mr. Zhou proposed was  Bretton Woods, which itself collapsed 40 years ago. Ironically, SDRs emerged in the aftermath.

Even the IMF’s limited use of SDRs shows how useless the system is and how limited it Esperanto Bucks would be. If SDRs were such a great system, one might think that the IMF would use it widely. In reality, it is little more than an accounting tool, backed by no government and used only for purposes like standardizing international postage and costs for luggage.

If I were to create a model for Esperanto Bucks, perhaps I would not use the postal service and baggage check systems as models. Maybe I would use the most widely used currency in the world, the one that people continue to trust in bad times.

Here a number of good links about this that I used as references but was not able to link to in this post:

• Paul Krugman
• Michael Pettis
• Bloomberg
• IMF

Here’s the FT article.

The other thing you see, less surprisingly, is English phrases. Sometimes they make sense, other times they are down right confusing. Like the one I saw with the menacing logo…and most generic text possible:

Given the number of college girls in America walking around with tatoos on the small of their backs that say “I love syphilis” in Chinese, I’m not going to critique the language skills of these drivers.

However, I saw one recently, that had perfect English–at least in that it made sense.

The message, on the other hand, may be a little telling about different views on the role of police in society. In most US cities, the police department motto is “To serve and protect” (see below for the good folks at the SD Police Department).

In China, at least on driver views the role of the police differently:

And yes, they were talking about the police, although I am totally baffled as to why they imply the police were founded in 1865.

And all the while, my understanding was that the Chinese PLA was supposed to be celebrating 50th anniversary of the liberation from enslavement of the serfs in far western China. I guess the policies are regional.