- Welcome, softly Dale Furrow
- - Log Out

##### Sections

- Home
- World
- U.S.
- Business
- Tech
- Markets
- Market Data
- Your Money
- Opinion
- Life & Culture
- New York
- Real Estate
- Management

##### Quick Links

- Blogs
- Videos
- Today's Paper
- Columns
- Politics & Policy

##### MORE FROM WSJ

- My Journal
- CIO Journal
- CFO Journal
- Risk & Compliance
- Heard on the Street
- Mansion

- #### WSJ

  - <h4>WSJ on Facebook</h4><div style="border: none; padding: 2px 3px;" class="fb-like" data-href="http://www.facebook.com/wsj" data-send="false" data-layout="button_count" data-width="250" data-show-faces="false" data-action="recommend"></div>
  - <h4>WSJ on Twitter</h4><a href="https://twitter.com/wsj" class="twitter-follow-button" data-show-count="true">Follow @wsj</a>

- #### WSJ LIVE

  - #### WSJ Live on Facebook

  - #### WSJ Live on Twitter

- #### MARKETWATCH

  - #### MarketWatch on Facebook

  - #### MarketWatch on Twitter

- #### BARRON'S

  - #### Barron's on Facebook

  - #### Barron's on Twitter

- #### Membership

  - #### Member on Facebook

  - #### Member on Twitter

- #### DJX

  - #### Product X on Facebook

  - #### Product X on Twitter

  - RT
  - F
  - R&C
  - PE&VC
  - WSJ
  - B

- #### MORE

  - WSJ Portfolio
  - WSJ Secure
  - BigCharts
  - Financial News
  - Professor Journal
  - Student Journal
  - Virtual Stock Exchange
  - WSJ Classifieds
  - WSJ Classrooms
  - WSJ Radio
  - WSJ Wine

The Wall Street Journal
Menu

- Home
- World
- U.S.
- Business
- Tech
- Markets
- Market Data
- Your Money
- Opinion
- Life & Culture
- New York
- Real Estate
- Management

- Opinion Home
- Peggy Noonan
- Arts in Review
- Book Reviews
- Political Diary
- Letters to the Editor
- Columns

Opinion
Dale's Journal

- Profile
- My News
- Saved
- Portfolio
- Old Portfolio
- Customize Watchlist
- Emails & Alerts
- Customer Center
- Logout

Live Help
The Wall Street Journal

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit http://www.djreprints.com.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/bret-stephens-hong-kong-pops-the-china-bubble-1412636585

ENLARGE
Protesters outside the central government offices in Hong Kong, Oct. 7. Brent Lewin/Bloomberg News
134 COMMENTS
By
Bret Stephens

Bret Stephens
The Wall Street Journal
CANCEL
- Biography Bret Stephens
- Bret.Stephens@wsj.com
- @StephensWSJ

Oct. 6, 2014 7:03 p.m. ET

Whatever comes next with the demonstrations in Hong Kong, they’ve already performed a historic service. To wit, they remind us of the silliness of the China infatuation so prevalent among pundits and intellectuals who don’t live in China.

That’s the central lesson of “Occupy Central With Love and Peace”—a movement that, morally speaking, is to its Wall Street namesake roughly what Václav Havel was to Abbie Hoffman. The student-led protests, which have demanded that Beijing honor its promises to allow democratic elections for Hong Kong’s chief executive, represent the ideal future of modern China: principled and well-educated, pragmatic and worldly. And what this potential Chinese future has been saying emphatically for the past week is that it wants no part of China’s dismal present.

That might come as news to the legion of China boosters who have been insisting for years that the 21st century belongs to the Middle Kingdom, and that the sooner we get used to it the better off we all will be. These are the people for whom a visit to Shanghai’s skyscraper-rich Pudong district, or a glance at official Chinese economic statistics, or a ride on one of China’s bullet trains, is enough to convince them that the West has had its day.

If only we could be “China for one day,” so that democratic partisanship didn’t stand in the way of enlightened governance— wouldn’t that solve everything?

Don’t tell that to the people of Hong Kong, who have learned the hard way that, except when pressured, Beijing honors no promises, countenances no dissent and contemplates no future in which the Communist Party’s grip on power can be loosened even slightly. Hong Kong became rich on the small government, laissez-faire, rule-of-law-not-men principles of its late colonial administrators. It has remained rich because, by comparison to mainland China, it remains relatively free and uncorrupt. Hong Kong is what China could be if it weren’t, well, China—if state intervention were minimal; if government weren’t a vehicle for self-enrichment; if people could worship, write, exercise and associate just as they please.

That’s what’s been at stake in the past week of mass protests: The people of Hong Kong have come out in force because they know what China is. Yes, they value their territory’s political autonomy, its traditions and idiosyncrasies. Yet they would not be lying in the streets, enduring thunderstorms and tear gas, if Beijing were offering them a better deal—better governance, bigger markets, greater wealth, wider possibility.

It’s not. There’s a reason why the elite of the Chinese mainland are often looking for the exits. The daughter of Supreme Leader Xi Jinping enrolled at Harvard under a pseudonym, as did the grandson of former leader Jiang Zemin . Other wealthy Chinese vie for jobs at U.S. investment banks, apartments on Manhattan’s 57th street, passports from Canada, green cards from the U.S. Chinese entrepreneurs account for three-quarters of the EB-5 U.S. visas—green cards for foreigners willing to put $1 million down.

“While the [Communist] party touts the economic success of the ‘Chinese model,’ many of its poster children are headed for the exits,” reported the Journal’s Jeremy Page in 2012. “They are in search of things money can’t buy in China: Cleaner air, safer food, better education for their children. Some also express concern about government corruption and the safety of their assets.”

These are the people for whom every conceivable door in China is already open. What about the nonelite? What about the people who don’t have a politically connected relative, or can’t afford to bribe a party official for a contract or a doctor for a medical procedure, or lack the funds to leave the country, or simply intend to pursue an honest calling in life, and do so honestly?

These are the people for whom the demonstrators in Hong Kong were also marching. “Don’t make us like the rest of China,” is an implicit theme of the movement. It comes from people who understand that what is hailed in the West as “the China dream” is a hoax. Dreaming is the essential freedom: There can be no true dreaming when the state regulates the sorts of dreams its people may have.

Where the real dream lies is in the minds of China’s cheerleaders in the West. These are people with the souls of technocrats. They look to Beijing now—as they did to Moscow in the 1960s—as a model of government in which wisdom comes from the top, national energies are put in the service of gigantic projects, and autocratic consensus replaces democratic fissiparousness. They seek life (and politics) without contradictions. Five or 10 years from now, when the China bubble has burst, they’ll be making a fetish of some other promising technocracy.

Meanwhile, pay attention to the people of Hong Kong. They have reminded us again that China is a dream only to credulous columnists, and that the lamp of the West still shines brightly in Asia.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

- 375
- 147
- Text Size
- Regular
- Medium
- Large
- Google+
- LinkedIn
- Print

134 comments

- Get Livefyre
- FAQ

Sign in
+ Follow
Post comment
Link
Newest | Oldest
Mark Dragoslovich subscriber 5pts

Spot on sir.

Jeff Rothman subscriber 5pts

Good article, but old news. In an earlier comment, someone who seemed to know what he was talking about wrote that China spends far more on internal security than on national defense, as they want to spot 'troublemakers' early on.

I met a man who does documentaries on vanishing cultures. He goes to places that very few others would dare visit, crosses borders in countries like Pakistan and Myanmar where it is convenient (not at border crossings), etc. He was in Kashgar and told me this was the only place he visited where he felt his life was in danger due to Chinese internal police constantly monitoring him, etc.

I was hauled off the street in Shenyang in 1991 by internal security police, where the one who could scream (not speak) English yelled that I was a spy sent by the CIA, etc.

Most who had the means left Hong Kong before it was handed over to the Chinese. I visited two years later and others with whom I spoke all told me that they would have left if it was possible.

Edward Goldberg subscriber 5pts

@Wayne Barker&Russel; Johnston

Definition of FISSIPAROUS: tending to break up into parts : divisive <fissiparoustendencies within a political party

David Erlandson subscriber 5pts

I lived in China in the early 80's and have not been able to return to see what happened there. The economic miracle must have take a toll on quality of life, even while there are enhancements. If liberty does not guide capitalism, indigenous corruption could ruin the benefits. Even back then, you had cadres having meat delivered to their back door in the middle of the night, while regular folks used grain tickets and ate pork bits and cabbage. Nice article, Bret, thanks.

LEON ZHAO subscriber profilePrivate 5pts

I am a firm believer in democracy and try to influence my friends, contacts in China through

social media of the superiority of western democratic system. But I found people are less interested and believed in democracy than they used to be thanks to the economic success of China on one hand and the paralyzing political governing in the West on the other. The Chinese intellectuals are wondering if they can afford a multi-party decision making system like US. We need to get our own house in order for people to see that democracy is still the right way for government. When we can't pass a budget or use a tax code even accounting professional can't figure out its meaning, it does not provide a good role model of democracy for the rest of the world to follow.

SAM KAZEE subscriber 5pts

amazing, thanks.

Wayne Barker subscriber 5pts

So Bret,

Looks like you are envious of archaic big words used in the Economist.

fissiparousness?--Give me a break

Hongyi Xin subscriber 5pts

I don't hate democracy and you are right about Mao. The risk of having an authoritorian government is having another crazy dictator. But that's all history. Yes it's dark but it has all passed. I would say China isn't Mao's China anymore and there won't be a Mao anymore. China has gone a long way since then.

You can't get to democracy in one leap. When you count those people died from famine on Mao, will you count the people died from warlords on Sun Yat-Son, the Chinese George Washington? If China installs democracy right now, I bet you, there will be another warlord era and another hundreds of millions deaths.

Even Taiwan is not really ready for democracy. Look at its history, its golden years was under the dictator Chiang Ching-kuo and Chiang Kai-shek. Her growth slipped ever since she entered democracy era. Besides, I don't really think Taiwan has true democracy. She has populism. Whoever that is unhappy about the current status can go ahead and occupy the congress and totally stall the country. Can you imagine that? Hundreds of people flood into the congress in Washington DC and occupy it, sleep in it, eat in it?

There are flaws, but ever since Deng Xiao Ping, I think the CCP has done an overall good work. It deserves some credit. China now has much more freedom then before and there will be more freedom in the future. Taiwan was still an authoritorian country not long ago. Given time, China will change cuz it's on the right track.

Harlin Smith subscriber 5pts

Lets hope the people of Hong Kong are successful at breaking the yoke of slavery that big government socialism imposes.

George Hollister subscriber 5pts

"Five or 10 years from now, when the China bubble has burst,"

Bret, five or 10 years? Even in the modern era, large central governments have had staying power, and when they crash it can be a surprise.

Gary McHam subscriber 5pts

@Steve Hutchinson - I did not know William Buckley personally, but I had the great pleasure of having Irving Kristol for a course at NYU's Graduate Business School (before its name change to Stern) entitled simply "Capitalism." I'm not sure he could have been a "talking head," because he made his points so clearly and succinctly that an opposing talking head would have been stumped on how to reply. Whether or not a columnist uses words to impress, the introduction of a word like "fissiparousness" runs the risk of breaking the reader's train of thought. Even if one knows the word (which I did not), the reader is likely to begin thinking about the word itself. Part of Irving Kristol's genius was his ability to communicate. Bret Stephens is good at this, too. I just thought this particular word was unnecessary. I do not remember the jazz composer who said this, but I have always liked it. "I pay as much attention to the notes to leave out as the ones to include."

JONATHAN ARMYTAGE subscriber 5pts

Interesting note on the left's reverence for China; Ami Horowitz, in his 5 min. video on the Climate march in New York, interviewed many people who said China was the model. This from the greenest of the green. Go figure.

XAVIER L SIMON subscriber 5pts

Democracy comes at a very high price. What is happening in Hong Kong should help reminds u that we have to take good care of ours and not let it slowly slide away, as it has been doing since the Progressive Era in the first half of last century.

JOHN NELSON subscriber 5pts

Brett continues his anti-American government spin. The protesters in China aren't protesting against the size of China's government, as Mr. Stephens would lead us to believe. Rather, they're protesting about not having a voice in the government.

China's problems, and Russia's, lie in the fact that the Communist parties control the governance. This in no way relates to the size of government as Mr. Stephens would have us believe. He equates the students protests with some tea party protest back here in the US. I bet if you polled those students and asked if they would be in favor of government regulatory agencies to control commercial exploitation of the environment, greater access to education and medical care the answer would be a resounding - YES!

Quit being unpatriotic and embrace our representative form of government vs. always trying to tear it down for your's and your benefactors advantage.

joel jones subscriber 5pts

Central planners are central planners, whether they are in China or the US. Power is their only ambition.

Herb Kay subscriber 5pts

You cannot have sustainable long term prosperity in a dictatorship and it's because government cannot be efficient. Putting aside the human rights abuses, which I don't do lightly but to the point, nobody is smart enough to govern the smallest of economies efficiently let alone a massive one the size of China's. Academics here and everywhere for some reason confuse massive with good. It is quite the opposite. Inefficiency and corruption is the rule in a centralized system. The more central the control, the less prosperity. Period. We are doing it here with the overreach of Obamanomics, but it is JV compared to China. They will at some point, seemingly without warning, implode and the fallout will sweep us into global depression as a result. When it happens a lot of intellectuals will say there was no warning. There was. And is.

DON SCHMIESING subscriber 5pts

The "China Dream" vs. the "American Dream". Which will crash first? China's dictatorship of the proletariat by the Communist Party vs. America's dictatorship of the makers by the takers?

James Ransom subscriber 5pts

Bret Stephens continues to be one of the most perceptive writers around. He cuts through the c...p quicker than most. Clear vision distinguishes free minds from dupes.

America continues to attract people from all over the world because we are still a beacon of freedom in a world of confusion, corruption and failure.

Can anyone but a fool want us to be "more like" China?

Russell Johnston subscriber 5pts

@Wayne Barker Had to look it up, huh?

Michael Wood subscriber 5pts

@Hongyi Xin

"Given time, China will change cuz it's on the right track."

Change to what...a free-market, rule-of-law, religious and minority tolerant, respecter of the individuals' self-determination? These are not the values of the Chinese ruling elite and they are unlikely to promote creation of the institutions that make these values work.

So what is it that China is going to change into?

Gautam De subscriber 5pts

@JONATHAN ARMYTAGE Blame the Left to extol China. But in reality it is the American manufacturers, who, by shifting almost all manufacturing to China for better profit, has created the massive economic power of China today - and yes, by depriving Americans their jobs. Rob China it's business with Walart, Ross, Kohl et al and see what happens.

George Hollister subscriber 5pts

@XAVIER L SIMON Freedom is what comes at a high price. Democracy is not necessarily freedom, even though one needs to have democracy to be free. Freedom means taking responsibility, it is a benefit and a burden. The relevant question is, do protesting Chinese want freedom? Or are they revolting slaves?

Michael Wood subscriber 5pts

@XAVIER L SIMON

Maybe...but what's democracy's claim to legitimacy if it is so beset with special interest politics that it cannot address the hard questions?

James DiLorenzo subscriber 5pts

@JOHN NELSON Hey John stop preaching to me. I have worked with government ;types and agencies for the last 40 years , and it is the most wasteful, lazy, self protecting, tax payer robing set of organizations you can imaging. They VA, IRS, and now the CDC are all recent examples, all of which are incapable of any thing approaching private sector efficiency and results. It is in fact patriotic to resist the growth of big government.

Quintus Cicero subscriber 5pts

@JOHN NELSON you read that article pretty narrowly John.

Marc Boswell subscriber 5pts

@JOHN NELSON Joan Nelson says that Communism in no way relates to the size of government.

Another stellar example of the state of education in America.

Rob Greene subscriber 5pts

What is the correct size of government? How much of a country's GDP should be controlled by its government?

JOHN NELSON subscriber 5pts

@DON SCHMIESING

It seems the American Dream crashed with the 2008 financial debacle, which culminated in decades of wealth transfers from the middle class to the upper class.

The irony is, the makers are really the takers here, through their corporate welfare and lowered capital gains tax rates. Romney is the taker...

WEIZHONG WANG subscriber 5pts

@James Ransom I would agree with you that "more like China" is dumb, hope you agree with me that "more like US" is also stupid. Each country should find their own path, with the ultimate goal of improving their citizen's lives. Most American would feel absurd if a member of the Rockefeller family lectures Americans about how to live a life, or even forces Americans to follow his instruction. But most Americans feel perfectly fine and in fact proud of lecturing the entire world of how to live their lives.

Wayne Barker subscriber 5pts

@Russell Johnston @Wayne Barker

Yes, I did. I thought the point of journalism was to be clear and not to obfuscate. I've ribbed Bret in the past about his big words but he still continues.

Hongyi Xin subscriber 5pts

@Michael Wood You sound like you personally know the ruling elites. Well, maybe you can read this for me then? http://news.qq.com/a/20140921/006325.htm (Let me translate the title for you: "President Xi called: democracy is not decoration and it's not just for display").

Ok. Let's assume what you said is right for a moment, that current ruling elites have no intention for "a free-market, rule-of-law, religious and minority tolerant, respecter of the individuals' self-determination". How do you know about future elites? You know them too? Most of them are probably educated in the US right now as we speak. You have no faith about your own country's education?

Rules of one generation might not change, but next generation will. Let me remind you, 150 years ago, the ruling elites of the US has no intention of freeing the black slaves. 90 years ago, the ruling elites of the US has no intention of letting women vote.

Steven Barnett subscriber 5pts

@Michael Wood @XAVIER L SIMON Have you ever considered that if there is not enough consensus to do sometihng about your "hard questions" then maybe they don't need to be addressed?

Matt Pyle subscriber 5pts

@Michael Wood @XAVIER L SIMON The U.S. is unique in that the constitution guarantees certain freedoms and the pursuit of happiness. The progressives are doing their best to distort the "pursuit of happiness" into some type of guarantee and undeniable obligation for others to make it so-- manifesting in never ending entitlements/taxes and an obscenely bloated federal gov't. It's far past time to get back to basics.

JOHN NELSON subscriber 5pts

@Rob Greene

To answer your question Rob: any size the people choose through their representatives.

Communists in China and Russia are like the corporatists here, always trying to suppress the people's will for their own profit. These students just want a say in who they elect, they're not protesting against government, rather, they're protesting for a government that works for them. Something Republicans should take note of as we head into the homestretch of our own election cycle.

Michael Wood subscriber 5pts

@WEIZHONG WANG @James Ransom

OK, we agree not to "lecture" the rest of the world and they agree not to intimidate smaller US allies and trade partners, to participate in reigning in the rogue nations that threaten peace in the world and to control the radicals that crash airplanes into American cities and shoot down civilian jetliners.

If China wants to become a great power and take on the responsibilities of that role, bring it on. If China wants to be a free-rider on a stability maintained by the US, we're probably going to continue to "lecture".

James Ransom subscriber 5pts

@WEIZHONG WANG @James Ransom

No, I don't agree with you in any particular, except that being "more like China is dumb".

I don't agree that Americans are "lecturing the entire world." We haven't sought you out; you guys are coming here in droves. You are telling us you like it here. Naturally, it is reasonable to suppose that if your country was more like America, you would go home.

And that would be fine with me.

Steven Barnett subscriber 5pts

@Hongyi Xin

In the American system, there are no ruling elites.The government is a reflection of the people.I admit that for the moment that reflection is not very pretty, but in the end it’s the Constitutional system of laws, checks and balances that brought prosperity to the U.S.Expecting the next generation of ruling elite in China to fix things without upending the autocratic order is a pipe dream.

Hongyi Xin subscriber 5pts

@Michael Wood 50 years ago, the ruling elites of the US has no intention to let black kids go to the same school with white kids. 5 days ago, the ruling elites of the US has no intention to have gay marriage. But it all changes in time. You are holding China's current and claim it China's future. Don't you see it?

WEIZHONG WANG subscriber 5pts

@Michael Wood I would not argue against your two posts, all fair to me. A lot of things China still should work on, domestically corruption, freedom... internationally shouldering more global responsibility and cost etc.

WEIZHONG WANG subscriber 5pts

@James Ransom One, there are close to 1000 US military bases around the world, did people there sought you out? Two, you clearly confuse current status vs. progress, I was arguing for China's path of progression, while you were gloating about America's current leading status. Three, I am sure the native Indians feel just fine if you would go back to some dirt hole in Europe where your family came from. Fourth, you maybe a doctor, but you are quite ignorant about economics. I came here because I can sell my labor at much higher prices, called arbitrage in economics.

Hongyi Xin subscriber 5pts

@Steven Barnett @Hongyi Xin Yeah but that's because all American citizens respect the constitution and the national congress. It's also because America was lucky that President George Washington didn't become King George Washington.

China has a People Congress too but you all know it has been a puppet of the CCP. The problem is, no one in China thought it is really really wrong, at least not until recently.

After Xi took office, he returned some power back to the congress. Little but he did. Now you can hear dissent voice in the people congress. Small but there is.

Personally I don't think US system is the ideal system. Better than China but not the best. Candidates here are pre-screened too, by Wall street. If you speak against the financial sector, you will have no sponsorship and good bye your election campaign. US has elites. They are just not in the government.

While expecting the next generation is a pipe dream, revolution is definitely disaster.

James DiLorenzo subscriber 5pts

@Steven Barnett @Hongyi Xin Oh really , no ruling elites. Obama seems quite elitist to me. And Hillary is next. And Obama is doing his best to eliminate checks and balances

GEORGE CERNIGLIARO subscriber 5pts

@Hongyi Xin At least in a representative democracy, change can come about in a more or less open fashion, by a legislative process. (Not so during our Civil War and not now in the US, but that's Obama and the Dems for you, but that'll change). Yes, the US has had its protesters in the streets, but this is allowed by law. Is that true for China? As the CCP is, in fact, a party oligarchy, and ruled by the fiat of men, it might be difficult to effect these kinds of change in a way approaching civility. Yes, China will get there someday, but I hope the price in blood is not too great. The US lost ~650,000 lives during its Civil War. China might lose that in a week, if all-out Civil unrest breaks out. It's a very tenuous time for China right now, and calls for real leadership. Are they up to it?

Michael Wood subscriber 5pts

@WEIZHONG WANG

China's leaders have absolutely no intention, now or in the future, to "work on...freedom", that is not the authoritarian-technocratic Chinese/Singaporean model. The *social contract* they propose is, "We, the ruling elite, will promote prosperity and you, the masses, will do what we say and will not attempt to become involved in how we govern".

If by "freedom" you mean Western respect for fundamental human rights of individual self-determination (which the West agrees exist but debates as to what extent), the Chinese leadership has no such belief and no intention to promote.

Steven Barnett subscriber 5pts

@WEIZHONG WANG

One, there are close to 1000 US military bases around the world, did people there sought you out?

Well, yes actually.

Glenn Donovan subscriber 5pts

@WEIZHONG WANG @James Ransom Name one country in which we have a military base that we haven't done so without agreement from the govt of that country? Name one - you can't. We have been invited in the by the govts of every nation in which we have forces. Places like South Korea and Japan where Chinese imperialists would have overrun if it weren't for the U.S.

James Ransom subscriber 5pts

@WEIZHONG WANG @James Ransom

Your ad hominem comments do you no credit. They are a sure sign that you have lost the argument. Thanks for explaining more clearly to the readers who you really are.

Steven Barnett subscriber 5pts

@Hongyi Xin Sure - no system is ideal, that's why I want one the does as little as possilbe. As for Wall Street, I think you overestimate their influence, or we would not have Sentor Warren (not that I think Sen Warren is a good thing).

Hongyi Xin subscriber 5pts

@GEORGE CERNIGLIARO @Hongyi Xin If you know China's modern history. What you said have exactly happened many times. Sun Yat-Sen installed democracy through revolution and China almost instantly broke out into Warlord era and tens of millions lost their lives. Later he started another war to re-establish democracy and another tens of millions died. The outcome? He elevated Chiang Kai-Shek straight to the throne and Chiang turned out to be a hell lot of a dictator. Then it came Mao, who claim China needs to resume democracy and the dictator Chiang needs to return power to the national congress and then civil war broke out again. The outcome? Mao ate all his words and became the new dictator. Then it came Deng's struggle, Tiananmen protest.

WEIZHONG WANG subscriber 5pts

@James Ransom Wow, indeed you are good at fooling yourself. You were the one that started calling me a shill several posts ago, and taunting me, without even one word of debating what I posted. Now you accuse me of ad hominem comments? You are such a loser and weak being. Holding a high power rifle to shoot a little bird, is that how you keep your masculinity? Other doctors are helping the sick and weak, in US and around the world, while you are killing little animals for personal enjoyment. You are just a pathetic being.

Hongyi Xin subscriber 5pts

@Steven Barnett @Hongyi Xin Yeah it should be. I'm just really concerned how to get there.

Hongyi Xin subscriber 5pts

@GEORGE CERNIGLIARO Every single time when there is a revolution, millions lost lives and nothing change. We are so tired of revolutions. Comparing the bast dictators, this CCP (not Mao's CCP) is probably the most modest and it is gradually returning power back to people.

What you said is true. I'm not against it. China needs to institutionalize its power. But how? Through one more revolution? Please don't be...

Show More Archives

#### Popular on WSJ

1. ###
   ‘Maximizer’ or ‘Satisficer’—Which Are You?

2. ###
   Nobel Prize in Physics Awarded for New Light Source

3. ###
   Turkish Leader Warns Border City Could Fall

4. ###
   Opinion: To Defeat Islamic State, Remove Assad

5. ###
   Costly Cancer Treatments Face Hurdles

6. ###
   Inside a Russian Billionaire's $300 Million Yacht

#### Editors’ Picks

- #### World News

  ###

  Nobel Prize in Physics Awarded for New Light Source

- #### Business

  ###

  California Finally to Reap Fracking’s Riches

- #### Speakeasy

  ###

  N.Y. Comic Con Preview: Bigger, Stronger and Geekier

- #### House Call

  ###

  A Country Singer’s ‘Wizard of Oz’ Farmhouse

- #### Business

  ###

  Costly Cancer Treatments Face Hurdles

- #### Markets Main

  ###

  Investor’s Winning Formula: Buy Winners

- #### Playlist

  ###

  Historian Edward J. Larson on Sam Cooke

- #### Wine

  PLAY

  ###

  Wine Lovers Take On Sommelier Exams