Yet the fact remains that numerous outlets are, in fact, making environmental coverage a priority, and the reason is simple: topics like energy and climate change are at the forefront of the national agenda.
Dina Cappiello, who covers environmental issues out of The Associated Press’s D.C. bureau, has worked at some half dozen news outlets since she completed Columbia’s dual-degree program in 1999. She says she has managed to stay “one step ahead of the crashing wave” of layoffs that has battered the industry. And having an environmental degree has, at times, been a nuisance when applying for jobs where editors mistook her for an environmentalist or didn’t understand the need for the rigorous scientific training she received. But once on the job, Cappiello adds, editors always recognized the value of her training, and never more so than over the last couple years.
“You have legislation on Capitol Hill that rivals the environmental statutes of the 1970s, at the beginning of the environmental movement,” she says. “You have an administration that made climate and energy its number-two priority, behind healthcare. It’s a beat that I, as one person, struggle at times to keep up with, and I wouldn’t be able to cover it as well as I do without my experience and training. At my last job at Energy & Environment Publishing, there were ten people that break my beat into ten slices.”
More recent graduates of Columbia’s dual-degree program also affirmed the value of their education, but tended to support the decision to spend a year re-evaluating its financing and direction. Most of those interviewed for this piece seem optimistic about their own prospects, but less so about the outlook for future graduates. According to Kastens’ most recent records, only two of the nine graduates in the last three years has found a full-time staff job in journalism; although many have landed coveted internships and others are happily freelancing.
“I may be a bit unusual but I never was seeking gainful employment, and I am still not,” Justin Nobel, who graduated in 2007, wrote in e-mail from Micronesia, where he is working on a story. “I am after a way to stitch together a life that allows me to explore science and culture and get paid for it. Columbia’s program has given me the credibility, confidence, and work ethic to be able to do that. I have been able to get paying gigs at small newspapers and mainstream magazines, while harnessing opportunities on the side.”
Nicholas Lemann, the dean of Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism, says the future of the dual-degree program comes down to a “matter of money.” If the journalism school can raise enough to provide students with “substantial” tuition support, they will return, be believes.
Venkat Srinivasan, who was accepted into the dual-degree class of 2010 and opted to enroll only in Columbia’s one-year journalism program instead, says the decision was largely financial. “I couldn’t afford a two-year cost, and the scholarship was never going to be enough to make it more attractive than a one-year program,” he wrote in an e-mail. “It was difficult at first, but money quickly decided everything.”
Finding more financial support for the dual-degree problem will be difficult for many complicated reasons that involve a lot of inside academic baseball. Basically, the program’s strength is also its Achilles heel. It compartmentalizes the education into a year of immersion in the sciences and a second year in the journalism school, but neither the science departments at Columbia nor the school of journalism take real ownership of the program.
Lemann says he’d “very much like to find a way to reawaken the dual-degree program,” but concedes that it belongs to a “far-flung corner of the realm” and that it is not one of his top priorities. “A lot depends on donors,” he said. “If I encounter a donor who says, ‘I have a passion for better environmental journalism,’ then I’d say, ‘Great. I’ve got a great idea for you.’”

This reminds me of the short-sighted view at my own university. I received dual degrees in biology and communications and did a lot of "popular" science writing as an undergrad. I have had two excellent jobs: one in the NGO world and I currently work as a green building consultant. Neither of those careers were ever imagined by my advisors or career counselors but the degree programs served me well. It's ridiculous to think that because there may not be enough newspapers to hire their graduates that there still won't be demand for that skill set.
#1 Posted by Kelly Kirkland, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 04:47 PM
Kelly, you make a very important point. One of the things that I did not have space to mention in my story is that many of Columbia's environmental journalism graduates have gone on to seemingly excellent jobs at places like the EPA, the American Museum of Natural History, the American Geophysical Union, or the New Zealand Fisheries Service. That master's degree in environmental science is, I believe, a valuable safety net in the unfortunate event that a journalism job doesn't work out. Moreover, because the Internet allows both the government and academic public information officers to essentially bypass the press, having people with rigorous journalistic training in those positions is all the more desirable.
#2 Posted by Curtis Brainard, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 05:06 PM
This is clearly disappointing news, but I'd point out that the MA journalism (usually for experienced journalists) is broken into 4 specialities - one of which is Science.
I know several of those students are interested in focussing on environmental journalism, so it may be that the same people who would have applied for this course can be found a home to pursue environmental journalism, albeit in the context of a slightly different taught curriculum.
Let's hope that this is a temporary measure, though - thanks for reporting it.
#3 Posted by Morus, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 05:49 PM
I agree with Kelly. We really need to look beyond the model of the environmental beat writer at a midsize-to-large daily newspaper.
Which is why the University of Montana is starting a master’s program in environmental science and natural resources journalism next fall.
Stories about what we call "the environment" cross beats and media. They need to be told by reporters that “get” science as well as economics and (global) politics.
My prediction is that there’ll be more than enough jobs to go around for journalists who are versatile storytellers AND knowledgeable about energy policy, climate change and conservation issues. They'll simply get their training in Missoula instead of in New York.
#4 Posted by transatlanticnomad, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 06:55 PM
Students should participate in a semester, year or summer abroad program.
#5 Posted by environmental science degree, CJR on Thu 29 Oct 2009 at 09:11 PM
What the Hell is "Environmental Science"?
OK, here is a "real science" checklist...
Physics?... Check
Chemistry?... Check
Biology?... Check
Geology?... Check
"Environmental Sciences"?.... What the Hell is that?
Did you guys look in the environment of my refigerator before you posted this crap?
Or my apartment?
My neighborhood?
My state?
If and when you get there, what do you do propose to do, exactly, in the name of "science"?
You guys are a laugh a minute.
The reality here is that your particular Ivory Tower granted a Bullshit Degree in Nothingness (A.K.A, in 'Environmental Sciences") for fourteen years because it had gobs of Other People's Money to toss at such stupidity. Given America's decline into ecomonic nothingness, it is thoroughly unsurprising to learn that (after a mere 14 years) Columbia finally managed to figure out that it can't afford such nonsense.
What's hard to grasp here?
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 29 Oct 2009 at 11:32 PM
Padkiller, I know you think ignorance is some sort of badge of honor, but it isn't.
All you need is google and a brain to figure out what environmental science is and what purpose it may play.
By your ability to post babble on the internet, we know you have access to google, so that only leaves one thing in question.
PS: Me loves the quote from the first link that jumps out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_science
Environmental science is an interdisciplinary field that involves both the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, geography, resource technology and engineering) and the social sciences (resource management and conservation, demography, economics, politics and ethics). It encompasses the surrounding conditions that affect man and other organisms. Natural and human resources are interdependent and the use or misuse of one affects the other.
There, you have your real science checklist represented.
Have a nice day.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 30 Oct 2009 at 01:21 AM
Thimble wikipediates: "Environmental science is an interdisciplinary field that involves both the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, geography, resource technology and engineering) and the social sciences (resource management and conservation, demography, economics, politics and ethics).
padikiller respoonds : Gotcha!
It's an "interdisciplinary" amalgamation of "physical" (real) science and "social" (voodoo) science...
Just like alchemy....
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 30 Oct 2009 at 10:55 AM
Economics is a voodoo science? Demography, resource management are in that boat too?
You know, the aboriginals used to think the tools derived from the application of scientific principles were magic oriented.
They were afraid that photographs stole a part of your soul.
Your distrust of science is revealing.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 31 Oct 2009 at 12:09 AM
thimbles wailed: "You know, the aboriginals used to think the tools derived from the application of scientific principles were magic oriented."
padikiller wonders: "Used to think?" How about "still think"?.. What makes you think the "aboriginals" are wrong?. What makes you think that all "aboriginals" have changed their faiths from what they "used to think"? Are you trying to denigrate aboriginal belief systems, here, Thimbles? Huh? Are you saying that "scientific principles" invalidate the aboriginal belief system?
Moving on, are you saying that (certain non-designated) aboriginals are "silly" or "stupid" because they believe that that their photographic depictions rob them of their humanity? Is THIS what you are claiming, there Sport? Cite some authority, here, huh?
Are Catholics "silly" or "stupid" because they believe that a priest can turn wine into blood and bread into flesh? Are Hindus "silly" or "stupid" because they believe in reincarnation? Are Muslims "silly" or "stupid" because they believe that dozens of virgins await to pleasure martyrs in Paradise?
Got any proof? Any data? Anything but prejudice?
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 31 Oct 2009 at 12:40 AM
Aboriginal belief systems may be the means of preserving a culture, they may provide structure to one's world and their identity within it, they may define the range of acceptable behavior for an individual within various situations, but they do not provide accurate models about how the world works, models that can be used to make make testable predictions and discover collaborating evidence. Science is the art of making models that best represent the world, based on the information available, There's nothing prejudiced about that because models have no prejudice. They are not based on values, they are based on reality. Either they reflect it, or they don't. Aboriginal belief systems may assign subjective meanings to the world, but they do not attempt to describe actualities.
The social sciences do attempt to describe actualities and you're one to lecture on matters of prejudice after describing them as "voodoo science". Like what have you got against voodoo, eh? Do you think voodoo is "silly" or "stupid"?
What a silly arguement.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 31 Oct 2009 at 12:11 PM
thimbles wrote : "Science is the art of making models that best represent the world, based on the information available"
padikiller responds: The reason we must distinguish the "physical sciences" from the "social sciences" is that the "social sciences" are not "real" sciences.
"Environmental science" is a jacked up, agenda-driven non-science (formerly known as ecology) that absorbs, by the definition you provided, politics, "ethics" (whose?) and who-knows-what-else into a pseudoscientific phiosophy.
The wacky nuts who pander this fraud can render any data they want to support their screwy stances simply by cooking the statistical books. This little slice of reality is personified in Dr. Stephen Schneider of Stanford, who a few years ago trotted out statistical "proof" of an imminent Ice Age and who today uses another statistical recipe to sound the "Global Warming" alarm with his liberal pals.
The "environmental scientists" are nothing more than anti-capitalists who seek to justify the silly notion that industry is harming the planet by causing global warming. The agenda presupposes that global warming is deleterious, and it is extremely funny to watch these guys when you try to pin them down on the details.
Try asking one of these "scientists": "What is the ideal average global temperature?" and see where that gets you. Ask them "Who will benefit from global warming"? Or "Won't sea life thrive if temperatures increase"? Suddenly, the "scientists" lack data! Go figure.
Thimbles continued: Do you think voodoo is "silly" or "stupid"?
padikiller responds: Actually I do think voodoo (and all religions) are both silly and stupid. That's why I would never incorporate them into a program of study and try to sell it as a "science".
If such a program is founded upon religion, politics or "ethics" it simply cannot be scientific.
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 31 Oct 2009 at 01:24 PM
Capitalism is a inefficient, wasteful system which uses the prosperity of a minority to create an illusion of the betterment of the majority.
Prove me wrong.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 31 Oct 2009 at 10:08 PM
Thimbles wrote: "Prove me wrong."
padikiller responds" You just proved yourself wrong.
No goons from the state are going to arrest you for what you just wrote.
Hop onto a soapbox in Tiananmen Square, rail against communism, and see how long it takes a flock goons in grey coats to slap you into chains. Run on down to Caracas or Havana and badmouth Chavez or Castro and see how long it takes to get escorted at gunpoint to a dank prison.
Liberty and capitalism are interdependent. You can't have one without the other. Capitalism has enabled the progression of humanity more than any institution in history has done so.
Now... Is capitalism "inefficient" when compared to other forms of government?.... No doubr!. Capitalism isn't as efficient as totalitarianism in terms of compeeling people to work for free. When you point a gun at people, they work harder and a whole lot cheaper.
As for the "prosperity of the majority" garbage... Give it a rest. The vast majority of people in capitalist countries enjoy a higher standard of living than the vast majority of people enslaved in communist countries. If you don't believe this, just set sail for Cuba to enjoy the good life. I hear Michael Moore has schedlued his gastric bypass surgery there.
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 1 Nov 2009 at 12:28 AM
Oh that's a pity. I thought I was quite clear when I said "PROVE me wrong." I know I didn't say "Post a bunch of dumb suppositions" but I guess I wasn't clear enough. Prove. Find studies that support your case, show the historical economic trends from a region that validates your principles, look at changes in social mobility within a capitalist society, get some evidence. Show that your beliefs are backed by data, otherwise they are just dogma, religious beliefs in an all powerful economic system that rewards the hard working minority and is the only thing that makes freedom of speech possible - though not exactly free since capitalism treats speech as a commodity.
You say a lot of things about capitalism, but where's your evidence?
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 1 Nov 2009 at 11:16 AM
Thimbles: Show that your beliefs are backed by data
padikiller responds: OK
Number of jackbooted government agents arrresting you for criticizing capitalism = ZERO
Number of capitalist countries in the top tewnty list of standards of living = TWENTY
Number of radio stations shut down by Hugo Chavez for opposing him = 34
Number of (officially designated) political prisoners in Cuba = 305
Number of images of tanks a Chinese-government censored google search will turn up for "tiananmen square" = ZERO
#16 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 1 Nov 2009 at 11:44 AM
Number of bullshit statements posted without supporting data = 5
Show your links. Show your work.
PS> I know this will come as a shock but there are many cases where countries have had a capitalist system and no freedom of the press, no freedom of speech, and the jackboots of the state could crush down your door at any time for doing simple things like attempting to negotiate a wage increase or speaking up to much about your missing abducted loved one. Go on, research the term banana republic or examine modern capitalist China. It's capitalism which defines human commodities, it's democracy and social movements which define human rights.
And though there are problems in Cuba, the Cuban people are better off than they were under the corrupt capitalist Batista and better off than their contemporaries in Jamaica, Haiti, or Guatemala, etc..
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html
all of whom don't have the sanctions that Cuba has and all of whom have higher rates of people leaving because the work in their home countries is cheap, hard, and not without occasional violence.
Capitalism is an economic system, it defines consumer freedom by what one can purchase in a market based on the money one has, It does not define personal freedom, human rights, autonomy. The incident in capitalist China at Tiananmen Square proved capitalism doesn't provide freedom and power to people under a government which does not relinquish it.Capitalism is thriving in China ever since Deng Xiaoping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping
but freedom? Not so much. So show me how you resolve that conflict. Think a little. Prove something. It's good for you to try once in a while.
The problem being, if your are going to prove your contentions about capitalism, you're going to have to rely on the tools of social science.
And if you don't attempt to prove your contentions about capitalism you are showing you're a dogmatic capitalist with a religious devotion to market economics that he does not understand. Your belief in capitalism is the blind faith of a religious zealot.
Prove me wrong.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 1 Nov 2009 at 09:17 PM
Thimbles wrote: "I know this will come as a shock but there are many cases where countries have had a capitalist system and no freedom of the press, no freedom of speech, and the jackboots of the state could crush down your door at any time for doing simple things like attempting to negotiate a wage increase or speaking up to much about your missing abducted loved one"
padikiller: Unbridled capitalism is dangerous. Unbridled ANYTHINGISM is dangerous. The abuses of unregulated capitalism during and after the Industrial Revolution were clear. Capitalism should clearly be regulated to the extent necessary to preserve competition and free markets.
However, the rest of your post is just silly...
China is hardly a "capitalist" nation. State Owned Companies make up the core of it's economy:
http://www.sasac.gov.cn/n2963340/n2971121/n4956567/4956583.html
China has reformed Stalinist socialism in the sense that Chinese government realized that letting people make a little profit was an inducement to make them creative, productive and efficient enough to avoid the famines that Mao gave them during the Cultural Revolution. However, the Communist party is still the only game in town:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
If you don't believe me, all you have to do is truck down to Beijing and tell the mayor's office you want to open a Reform Party/Falun Gong headquarters. Hint: Don't drop the soap while you're waiting for the building permits.
And yeah... Cuba is in great shape! Anyone you talk to will tell you they just love the Castro regime... Nothing like a little pain of imprisonment to keep a smile on a face! Cuba had the financial support of the Soviet Bloc for thirty years and has open trade with dozens of non-third world countries now. And still, it is nothing but a crap-hole.
And contrary to your statement, even your left-leaning beloved Wikipedia is forced to concede that in 1958, under Batista, Cubans had the highest standard of living in the Latin world. So what made the people enamored with Castro? Economic "disparities" brought about by... wait for it.... Labor union "privileges" that came "at the cost of the unemployed and the peasants".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Modern_history
Capitalism and personal freedom are inseparable. When Jefferson wrote of the "pursuit of happiness" he wasn't talking about sex or fine wines - he was talking about the natural and fundamental right to become wealthy that Locke and Rosseau delineated. Ultimately, this amounts to property rights.
When the property rights of the people are secured by governments - capitalism is inevitable. People will invest. When property rights of individuals are not secured by governments (like when a certain President states his intention to "spread the wealth around") capitalism flounders because people will divest. If China further loosens its market reforms, and offers real capitalism to more than a few percent of its population, then it will either have to institute political reforms by granting its people more freedoms or face the music by dealing with revolt. If China goes the Castro way, shuts down what little stock trading it has, takes over the companies making a profit, and puts the Mao posters back on the walls, then its economic growth will die on the vine.
While there are certainly many economic functions that should be performed outside of the boardrooms of capitalism by governments, cooperatives and charities, the profit motive is the only thing that will drive an economy. And the only way to create a property motive
#18 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 1 Nov 2009 at 11:58 PM
LOL...
Go to Tiananmen Square and call China a capitalist country just see what happens. China has realized that a profit motive is the only way to grow its economy- so it allows SOME of its people to keep SOME of the profits of their labors... However, the capital- the ownership of the huge Chinese companies- remains in the hands of the state. "State Owned Enterprises" control all of the major industries in China. The privately owned companies are heavily regulated and the owners regarded with distrust and suspicion.
Sure, a Chinese guy can go to one of the few designated "free enterpirse" zones and open a private business stamping out tricycles or cell phones- as long as it doesn't dabble in any of the core state-owned markets. But private enterprise is off-limits to the vast majority of Chinese citizens.
It will be interesting to see how China develops- if it expands private ownership of businesses, it will inevitably feel political heat from business interests when government policies rail against the bottom line. It has already, in less than 30 years of market reform, been forced to crush a huge revolt.
Look at your beloved Wikipedia - The Chinese Communist Party is the only game in town - Don't believe it? Hop on down to Beijing and try to open up a Reform Party headquarters (HINT: Don't drop the soap while you're waiting for the building permits to go through).
As for Cuba, you need to Wikipediate a little more - in 1958, under Batista, Cubans enjoyed the highest standard of living in the Latin world. So what attracted them to Castro? Read it and weep. Labor privileges negotiated by unions that came at the expense of the unemployed and the peasants.
Cubans under Castro "enjoy" what? Food shortages? Toilet paper shortages? Mass murder at the hands of Guevara? Political imprisonment? Censorship?
Cuba was propped up for nearly thirty years by the Soviet Bloc and now enjoys free trade with dozens of highly developed nations. It has beautiful beaches, a tropical climate, huge areas of fertile land, large port facilities... and yet... It is a nothing but a crap-hole. Communism just doesn't work.
True capitalism - the private ownership of the means of production can only exist when property rights are secured. When the government secures property rights, people work hard, create, and invest. When government seizes, transfers, or "redistributes" property rights, people don't work, don't create and don't invest.
Property rights, in turn, are intertwined with the other "self-evident" rights, namely life and liberty. When Jefferson wrote of the "pursuit of happiness", he wasn't speaking of sex or fine wines, he was speaking of property rights - the right to accumulate wealth delineated by Locke and Rousseau.
"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816
#19 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 2 Nov 2009 at 12:12 PM
Sorry to disagree Padkiller, but China is indeed a capitalist system and does allow private ownership among citizens. (I live in Beijing) That said, two decades of capitalism has brought China immense wealth and a huge increase in living standards, while 40+ years of communist rule brought poverty.
China is now a more capitalist country than the US, which is a big problem for us Americans. People work hard here because they know there’s no safety net, and if they make money they can keep it. The difference in attitudes between the two countries is striking.
Yes, there are nuisances like having Facebook blocked (why?) or anything with “blog” in the URL. On the other hand, I’m not forced to buy health insurance under penalty of fines or imprisonment, as I was in Massachusetts.
#20 Posted by JLD, CJR on Mon 2 Nov 2009 at 07:12 PM
For the love of christ, document your claims! Stringing a bunch of yabber together with drool does not an argument make.
You obviously cannot support your clams since you won't! You don't think about your beliefs, you regurgitate them.
Puke somewhere else where your 14 year old libertarian colleagues will be impressed, you light weight. Maybe in 10 or so years, you'll know enough about what you believe to have an intelligent discussion about it.
Until then, save your dismissals of other people's work because you have no work of your own to show.
#21 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 2 Nov 2009 at 09:18 PM
JLD wrote: China is indeed a capitalist system and does allow private ownership among citizens
padikiller responds: Hardly
If you live in Beigjjing then you know that more than 70% of the economy, including all of the core primary production industries are owned by the state:
http://www.sasac.gov.cn/n2963340/n2971121/n4956567/4956583.html
jld wrote: Yes, there are nuisances like having Facebook blocked (why?) or anything with “blog” in the URL. On the other hand, I’m not forced to buy health insurance under penalty of fines or imprisonment, as I was in Massachusetts.
padikiller responds: Hey, as long as you're willing to trade "nuances" like freedom of expression, right to free assembly, freedom of religion, right to petition the government to air your grievances, etc, for second-rate health care from the nanny state, communism is the way to go!...
#22 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 3 Nov 2009 at 07:07 AM
It is amusing to see such a juvenile rant about "sources" from a guy who knows nothing other than Wikipedia....
But in the interest of civil debate, here you go:
1. China is a comnunist nation:
China "is a socialist republic (specifically a people's democratic dictatorship according to its constitution) ruled by the Communist Party of China under a single-party system,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China
2. Cuba was better off under Batista than Castro. The labor unions brought about the Cuban Revolution.
"Cuba had Latin America's highest per capita consumption rates of meat, vegetables, cereals, automobiles, telephones and radios. In 1958, Cuba was a relatively well-advanced country, certainly by Latin American standards, and in some cases by world standards. Cuban workers enjoyed some of the highest wages in the world. Cuba attracted more immigrants, primarily from Europe, as a percentage of population than the US. The United Nations noted Cuba for its large middle class. On the other hand, Cuba was affected by perhaps the largest labor union privileges in Latin America, including bans on dismissals and mechanization. They were obtained in large measure "at the cost of the unemployed and the peasants", leading to disparities.Between 1933 and 1958, Cuba extended economic regulations enormously, causing economic problems. Unemployment became relatively large; graduates entering the workforce could not find jobs. The middle class, which compared Cuba to the United States, became increasingly dissatisfied with the unemployment, while labor unions supported Batista until the very end."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Modern_history
3. Zero images of tanks or protestors returned on Google.cn search for "tiananmen square protest":
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&um=1&ei=UiHwSpAHipww1If5jgc&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=tiananmen+square+protest&spell=1&start=0
#23 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 3 Nov 2009 at 07:31 AM
Padkiller, I think you misunderstood pretty much everything in my post. In China 70% state ownership might have been true 20 years ago, but it's estimated at 33% now. That might sound like a lot, but it's like similar to the US government's share of GDP, pre-takovers.
My point about health care is not that I rely on China's crappy system, but that the USA (or at least Massachusetts, and soon the rest) restricts my rights to purchase or not purchase health care as I please.
Finally, China's one party system is nominally Communist, but the country is really capitalist - much more so than the US. Which is one big reason why GDP exceeds that of the US. If you are trying to argue that capitalism is good (which I think you are), then China, not the US, is exhibit A.
Thimbles - If you really are unaware of China's GDP growth and economic liberalization, then you might want to actually read, you know, a newspaper now and then. That's what this web site is supposed to be all about.
#24 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 3 Nov 2009 at 07:45 AM
Thimbles - If you really are unaware of China's GDP growth and economic liberalization, then you might want to actually read, you know, a newspaper now and then. That's what this web site is supposed to be all about.
I have no illusions about China's economic system nor its government (I'm a longtime reader of McClatchy coverage and know lots of folks who do business in China. (Hey, one of my countrymen is annoyingly big out there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashan)) and I agree with you on the facts, so you're likely not talking to me, JLD.
As far as the economy goes, what China does have a great deal of control over is the banking system, which is why China can produce a high growth, loose money economy and peg its currency to the depreciating dollars of its customers in the west.
But the businesses in China are mainly autonomous, international, and capitalist. As a consumer, you're free; as a laborer, you're cheap; as a citizen you're inconspicuous if you know what's good for you. That's life in that particular capitalist society, no matter what an American with a distrust of science and an acolyte's devotion to an Ayn Rand annotated version of The Wealth of Nations says.
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 3 Nov 2009 at 09:57 AM
JLD: When I wrote "as long as you're willing to trade "nuances" like freedom of expression, right to free assembly, freedom of religion, right to petition the government to air your grievances, etc, for second-rate health care from the nanny state, communism is the way to go!"... I wasn't talking about China...
I was talking about the People's Republic of Massachusetts... ;-)
#26 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 3 Nov 2009 at 11:53 AM
Irony...
Starvation drove the Chinese to abandon pure communism in favor of regulated capitalism...
And obesity is driving Americans to abandon regulated capitalism in favor of pure communism...
"The Commie Diet"
#27 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 3 Nov 2009 at 03:49 PM
It's funny reading this in 2012... the online media space needs journalists like never before. It's probably the best time to get into this industry.
#28 Posted by Cuba Travel, CJR on Thu 28 Jun 2012 at 01:36 PM