Weekly Chinese Idiom Last Chinese New Year I gave a box of Chunghwa cigarettes to a close friend named Liú Jié 刘杰. The expensive brand of cigarettes, Chunghwa, are sold in a soft pack, while cheaper ones are sold in a hard box. Shanghai Tobacco Co. has been producing Chunghwa branded cigarettes for over 50 years and currently exports to 30 countries on five continents. Chunghwa cigarettes have long been a prized gift among businessmen and government officials along with Wuliangye "bái jiŭ ". Bái jiŭ 白酒 literally means white alcohol, and clocks in at 80-120 proof, or 40-60% alcohol by volume, which compares to vodka with a measly 35-40%. Wuliangye 五粮液 bái jiŭ can cost up to 27,000 Chinese renminbi (US$3,900) or roughly 9 months wages for a full-time Beijing taxi driver. To be frank the Chinese don't mess around when it comes to smoking or drinking.

A 2002 study by members of the University of Sheffield and the Univ. of Michigan found that China leads the world in male smoking. Globally, 43% of men above age 15 smoke, yet in China more men smoke than don't. Maybe a smoking ban would help slow global warming? By 1999 the World Health Organization stated one in three cigarettes smoked in the world were in China. The Worldmapper.com , which uses cartograms to re-size 200 countries according to the variable being mapped, shows the global smoking population in 2002. The map below illustrates China's male smoking use relative to the USA, and the rest of the world. But the USA can still claim to be number one, ...in cigarette exports. According to a 2003 Congressional Report titled, "U.S. Tobacco Production,Consumption, and Export Trends", US annual exports were estimated be 127 billion cigarettes in 2002 alone. One firm, PhilipMorris International, stated in its 2002 Annual Report that non-U.S. shipments totalled 723 billion cigarettes!

In true Chinese tradition, when my birthday rolled around, Liú Jié gave me a gift - a 3,061 page dictionary of Idiomatic expressions with Chinese/English translations. Liú Jié knew that I enjoyed quipping Chinese idioms in a desperate act to show off my feeble command of the language. Once I ventured to China's northern city of Dalian where my host brought out a high-walled, cold glass plate topped with green lettuce and live prawns soaked in alcohol - a dish aptly named "drunken shrimp". My host and friends kicked back the bái jiŭ and ripped the live heads off the prawns. Next they stripped the dancing legs off the tails and dipped them in small sauce dished and ate them. I paused for a second watching the decapitated prawn whiskers still moving about as its torso was being digested. I wasn't fond of drinking white alcohol or eating live sea animals. But I feared disrespecting my hosts even more and joined in. Had I received my book of Chinese idioms sooner, I would have been able to say 入乡随俗 pronounced 'rù xiāng suí sú'! The idiom translates into, 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do'.

In Chinese idioms are called 'chéngyǔ' 成语 or "set phrases", which commonly consist of four Chinese characters, as in my previous example. Chéngyǔ are probably nearly as old as Chinese language itself, and my idiom tome probably has over 20,000. My highly valued book is published by China's top academic institution - Tsinghua University press. Tsinghua University is where my former and current boss, China's current sitting President Hú Jǐntāo 胡锦涛, and Liú Jié each graduated. The University also lies about three miles from Lenovo China's headquarters.

Today I would like to offer readers with a weekly idiom, 安渡难关 ān dù nán guān, which translates: TO PULL THROUGH, or tide over a crisis. An appropriate idiom for these financial times, but an idiom that also demonstrates eastern and western cultures have both overcome difficult times and share similar phrases to express it. Photo Credits: Mao Smoking by Michael Feat on Flickr; Cartogram chart by Worldmapper.com; Book of Chinese Idioms by Cory

Authors Note:

*A useful website to translate Chinese characters into romanized 'pinyin' is http://www.hanzitopinyin.com/converter/ .

*To translate between simplified Chinese/English and English/Chinese you can use Google Translator.

On Sept. 25, 2008 China successfully launched the Shenzou VII spacecraft. Two days later a five-yellow star flag waving, 'made in China' spacesuit wearing Chinese astronaut, Zhai Zhigang, made history by becoming China's first space walker. Only two other super powers, Russia and the United States, have ever sent humans to walk in space. On Sunday, Sept. 28, the Chinese astronauts returned safely to a heroes welcome in Beijing.

The compressed development of China means that in just 30 short years the country has risen from a depressed Maoist-planned economy to fulfilling the same goals of science and exploration that JFK and the USSR sought as world powers during the space race of the 1960s. By 2020 China plans to launch a moon orbiter, complete a space station and land humans on the moon. The recent spacewalk strengthens the Party's credibility to execute large scale projects such as the hosting of the Beijing Olympics. After the success of the Shenzhou 6 in 2005, the Chinese government announced China would launch humans into space to perform a spacewalk in 2008. This week the Chinese Government delivered the result.

What about the United States credibility to deliver results for large scale projects that it commits to? How does the democratic USA measure up against an autocratic state controlled government to deliver upon its public commitments in space science and technology?

Nearly five years ago on Jan. 14, 2004 US President George W. Bush announced that American astronauts would return to the Moon by 2015, develop a new manned vehicle, and use the experience to land Americans on Mars by 2030. The new NASA Moon landing alone was estimated to cost $12 - $50 billion dollars. One of the rationales for renewed interest in space exploration is over 1,300 new technologies were derived from the space industry leading to useful products such as satellite communications and heart monitors. In addition rare minerals may also be found.

All those things sound great! I love my mobile phone and generations of elderly and wall street bankers value heart monitors. Lets look at where the US is at meeting its milestones. The 2009 NASA budget rose 1.7% from '08, but leaves the agency $500,000,000 short of where NASA was told it would be by 2009 when Bush proposed the Moon mission. Wait, $500M short? The Moon is only 384,000 km away from Earth, how will Americans make it to Mars, which lies 490M kilometers away, a distance 3Xs times farther away than the Earth lies from the Sun on an underfunded budget?

The Whitehouse has stated that the US has been in a recession since 2001 and the fighting costly wars will require sacrifices. President Bush publicly committed to the American people and the world to a goal. Bush correctly stated, "the fascination generated by further exploration will inspire our young people to study math and science and engineering and create a new generation of innovators and pioneers." Yet unlike the years following the Kennedy address to land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth, in the years since Bush's speech, the Republican controlled Executive and Congressional(until 2006) branches did not commit the necessary resources to achieve the goal. Using historical budgetary figures adjusted for inflation, during the 8 year Clinton Administration NASA received a total of $131.76 Billion or $16.5 Billion dollars a year. During the 8 year Bush Administration NASA received less at $130.125 Billion dollars or $16.3 Billion per year. To date the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars have cost $604 Billion dollars, enough money to fund NASA for the next 35 years at current NASA spending levels. In fact, when adjusted for inflation, the Wars already total 75% of the entire 50 year budget of NASA since its creation in 1958.

Was it science or politics that led to the Bush announcement to pursue Moon and Mars missions when America is fighting two Wars, an unfunded health and social security system, and rising unemployment. Four years later unemployment figures are at a seven year high, and today President Bush signed a $700 Billion dollar bail out of America's largest banks and insurance firms. OK, the sub-prime mortgage crisis hadn't occurred, yet in 2004 America had just witnessed its seventh largest firm Enron declare bankruptcy - a sign that US businesses needed more robust assets and businesses models. The recent Financial Bailout represents nearly 7% of the total annual US Federal Government Budget, yet NASA's budget only consumes 0.6% per year. Since 2003, the CIA WorldFactbook states the US economy has grown an average of 3.1% a year. In 2007, China's economy grew 11.4%, its largest increase in 13 years.

In an Orwellian way, maybe the public perception is being used by two large state governments in different ways. China is opening up its media and reporting on the space missions with unprecedented transparency, which is promoting national pride and government allegiance. At the same time the US government is using its power to interrupt American TV broadcasting for President Bush to deliver state messages of fear and urgency to give tax-payer money to financial institutions NOW!

At the same time, Intel Chairman Craig Barrett cannot believe that the US Government failed to increase funding for Research & Development in Science and Technology by $1.2 billion, as authorized by the America Competes Act, which President Bush signed in August of 2007. Barrett states, "A big part of the world is still investing in infrastructure, China, Russia and India. Those regions are seeing good growth rates. ....I’m not against bailing out Wall Street, because they are bailing out individuals. But when you look at the agricultural subsidies and the bailouts and the earmarks it’s hard to believe the government can’t come up with $1 billion to fund innovation. We as a country have chosen not to compete." To put this in perspective, Congress approved a $487.7 billion 2009 budget for the Defense Department, including a single Navy Destroyer at a cost $1.5 billion, more than required to fully fund the America Competes Act. Since 2003, President George W. Bush's missile defense spending has run about $10 billion per year, and the FY 2009 is the highest missile defense request on record at $13.2 billion. In my opinion, military spending has shown a poorer return on investment relative to spending on scientific research and innovation. Regardless of where you stand on military spending, the issue is about prioritizing. We cannot engage in global wars, bailout entire financial industries - including five large banks this week alone, and expect to remain dominant in science and technology, including space exploration. The trend suggests that the current US Government can identify an issue, yet like the inadequately funded Space Exploration Program, does not supply the resources to bring the project to completion. In business we frown upon blue sky thinkers who have ambitious plans, yet do not follow-through with execution to achieve the stated result. A plans without action is irresponsibility.

During the 2004 Moon and Mars announcement, Bush stated, "We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives and lifts our national spirit." Bush is right, investments in Science and Technology, embodied in space exploration can enhance our collective innovation, produce new products and services and instill us with pride. By delivering on its goal of a spacewalk in 2008, the Chinese Government has enabled Chinese citizens to celebrate in the exploration of space and associated boosts in national spirit. Sadly like Intel's Chairman observed, the US is not investing in our competitive future. The every day person living in the BRIC countries are as hungry to succeed as Americans were during the Industrial Revolution. The recent Chinese space walk demonstrates the world has changed. The US Government and millions of Americans are failing to acknowledge that developing countries are focusing on developing systems of internal innovation and delivering sustainable results through investments in science and technologies that matter. We must do the same, otherwise there will be 45 less stars on the cover of Time Magazine for generations to come.

Photo Credits: China Daily, Xinhua News, CNN, NPR

Bush requests Congress to Grow US National Debt Limit by $700 Billion: Need for Performance Management and Accountability in Government

Cory’s Takeaway: The US Government should use the same standards of management performance that are required in private industry. This article examines historical data to benchmark our Government’s current performance using data from a wide range of sources. Based on this article’s data it is clear that the current Government did not deliver on its brand (Bush White House) promise to prevent recession, shrink government spending or create an environment for sustainable lower taxes. It is also clear that the Government did not put in place the right processes (regulations) to ensure its management system would work efficiently and in the interest of its stakeholders (voters, world-community, environment). If this was a business the board of directors (voters) would evaluate the data and hold the managers (Bush Administration) accountable for their poor performance. Let’s base our voting decisions on data and not emotion. Let’s seek out the most reliable data and use historical benchmarks, trends, and facts to base our decisions. And when our managers of our great nation fail to perform according to plan, let’s hold them responsible for their economic mismanagement and incompetence, which is what we would expect in any competitive organization.

Almost exactly eight years ago on Sept. 29, 2000, while campaigning for President, Gov. Bush stated his sweeping tax cut of $1.3 trillion over 10 years was, in fact, ''an insurance policy against an economic slowdown or a recession.'' Indeed President George W. Bush ran in 2000 on the promise to shrink government spending and cut taxes. He warned that too much new government spending could cripple the economy. Bush belittled sitting vice president Gore for proposing larger government spending on education, health care, Medicare and the environment as having, ''cast his lot with the old Democratic Party'' in proposing a new level of federal spending and regulation, which Gov. Bush said would endanger the country's current prosperity. In his first address to congress he lobbied for the largest tax cut in history, which later passed, stated, "American taxpayers have been overcharged, and on their behalf I am here to ask for a refund”. Did large tax cuts benefitting the richest Americans, less regulation and a pledge to shrink ‘Big Government’ work? Here’s the data-

Today Sept. 21, 2008, President Bush is requesting the largest Government bailout in 80 years, which will require a Congressional act to raise the United States national debt limit from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion! This represents the largest corporate welfare package in history, and does not hold accountable the people, firms or processes responsible for poor business decisions. Imagine if a free-market IT business could make bad bets on customers, collect large salaries and bonuses and then when their investments didn’t deliver ROI, the government would offer to pay out! Imagine an IT executive making enormous salary and bonuses for poor business management and not being held accountable. That is the reality for the recipients of the $700 billion “Bailout Plan”.

In 2004 the late libertarian commentator Harry Browne used DATA from US Gov Statistics and Economic Indicators, which identified that Bush grew non-military Government spending by 3.5% a year by 2004, compared to the historic President who grew non-military government spending the least per year at an average of 1.5%, Bill Clinton. In real terms, using Gov. Data and not rhetoric, means that by 2004 Bush was increasing non-military spending at twice the rate as Bill Clinton.

Even former Republican economist Alan Greenspan criticizes Bush for growing government spending, despite having a Republican Congress in power for over 80% of his presidency. "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. In his recent book, conservative Greenspan praises Clinton for collecting relevant information, seeing the big picture and trying to use the tax surplus to fund Social Security into the future.

In a 2000 campaign speech Gov. Bush criticized Gore, “His promises throw the budget out of balance. He offers a big federal spending program to every -- to nearly every -- single voting bloc in America. He expands entitlements without reforms to sustain them”. In 2008, the USA has the largest budget and trade gap ever, enormous expenditures for the expensive Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and an unfunded Social Security system with millions of aging Americans set to retire. Today the Bush Administration’s short three page (budget ‘unbalancing’) plan asks for $700 billion of tax payers money to compensate large financial firms for poor investments, and does not address the home-owners who are losing their homes. Inronically Bush's Bail Out Plan will leave generations of Americans with an enormous debt that can only be paid for in higher taxes. Bush offered, "The risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package. ... Over time, we're going to get a lot of the money back." Bush failed to set a specific date on when ‘we’ will get the money back, and did not specify what will be done to make the money, or how the money will be given back. Back to Bush’s original campaign address in 2000, 'Americans are being overcharged', but sadly the Bush team has not produced an economic system to deliver a refund. The House of Representative’s top Republican, Ohio Rep. John A. Boehner, stated, "We need to do everything possible to protect the taxpayers from the consequences of a broken Washington." That last statement is something I can agree with.

Michael Phelps and American Face

Two Chinese girls inspect an Omega ad featuring American Olympian, Michael Phelps. For the past four years I've been hearing rumors that China would defeat the USA in the Olympics. Last week those boasts became a reality. The final medal count saw China lead the world in Gold medals with 51, to the USA's 36. Some web pages like Chris Chase's "The Real Medal Count" are indignant that China disproportionately won in judged events. However the fact remains that 2008 is the first time in 16 years that Team USA has not led the Olympics in Gold Medals, and represents China's best Olympic performance to date. The overall medal count saw American men and women's teams carry equal weight with 53 medals each and one Mixed event to bring the total US medal count to 110, against China's total medal count of 100.

The me generation continues. Weren't we all taught in Business 101 about Hoftstede's Five Cultural Dimensions that states that Asian Societies are Collectivist or more integrated into strong cohesive groups. How come China's athletes performed gloriously in individual competitions and fared dismally in most of the team based sports? For example, China's first gold medal went to a petite, 106 pound, female weightlifter named Chen XieXia who hoisted an amazing 258 pounds! How about those other collectivistic sport records for China? The Chinese athletes took home Gold in more individual than team sports including men's 56, 62, 69kg Weightlifting, Lightfly Boxing, Canoe, Horizontal Bar Gymnastics, Fencing, and the women's Taekwondo, Judo, 50M Pistol, 10M Rifle Shooting, and Archery et al. Table Tennis, Badminton and Gymnastics were the main team sports for Team China. As a contrast, the 'individualistic' USA performed extremely well in team-based sports such as, Water Polo, Volleyball, Softball, Team Fencing, Eight person Rowing, Basketball and Relay Swimming! Of course that last sport SWIMMING, redeemed Team USA for our unique brand of American individualism. Yes, Michael Phelps, keeping true to his word, won eight Gold medals.

Those familiar with Chinese culture know that the word eight in Chinese is the character 八 pronounced 'bā' which phonetically sounds similar to the first syllable in 发财 'fă cái ', which means rich or fortune. Eight is so revered that license plates with the number eight have been auctioned for small fortunes. When I arrived in China in 2005 I went to a shop to buy a SIM card with an associated phone number. I asked the sales clerk why some of the SIM cards were much cheaper than others. He replied that phone numbers were unlucky if they had a four within the number because the Chinese word for four is 四 'sì', which phonetically sounds similar to 死 'sĭ ' meaning death. I was told people would be disinclined to call me if I had a number of unlucky fours. Consequently phone numbers with fours were highly discounted. I ended up paying a premium for a more expensive phone number with three eights in it because I was told people, particularly ladies, would be more keen to call me!

Some people are calling Phelps '八th' Olympic Gold win, one of the greatest moments in sports. During this 200八 Olympics, Phelps achievement may be the strongest case for the continuation of what many people see as an epic American ideology, that the individual through their own means can stand up work hard, work hard, work hard and obtain their rightful American Dream. But we need to look carefully at the changes on the horizon. The architects of China's breathtaking Olympic venues are the same masterminds responsible for China's rising economic power and increasingly materialistic society. The me generation of China doesn't seem bent on political reform, but is passionate about rising to the top. The Olympic athletes are the tip of the iceberg, and despite Phelps saving USA 'face' at the Beijing Olympics, the state of the art sports venues, the fireworks, the red flag waving masses, are confirming that with each appreciation of the PRC currency - the Renminbi, with each manned space flight, the Chinese people are creating their own unique brand of China Dream.

Are the little girls admiring Michael Phelps' photo, or thinking what glory awaits their future?