From the magazine
A police state that American investors love
Harold Meyerson
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
The Washington Post
The U.S. economy might be wobbling, but some American investors have found an overseas industry with “an almost limitless future,” said Harold Meyerson in The Washington Post: “The Chinese police state.” A slew of Chinese electronic surveillance companies is going public in the U.S., with the enthusiastic support of American hedge funds. Ostensibly private, these companies are actually “a for-profit adjunct of the Chinese government.” Take China Security and Surveillance Technology, the recipient of a $110 million loan from Chicago hedge fund Citadel Group. CSST makes face-recognition software and security cameras that can monitor street demonstrations—perfect for fighting terrorists. China doesn’t have a terrorism problem, of course. But as a totalitarian state, it “can never be sure how many of its citizens would relish its demise.” That explains why China’s surveillance industry, which generated $500 million in 2003, is now projected to grow to $43 billion by 2010. That’s an opportunity America’s hedge funds can’t pass up, even if it means shattering the myth that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. The Bush administration could discourage these investments, but don’t hold your breath. If it comes down to a choice in the White House between capitalism and democracy, “the smart money’s on capitalism.”
Borrowers are not innocent bystanders
Bruce A. Percelay
The Boston Globe
Mortgage lenders have quickly gone from heroes who made the American dream affordable to villains who made borrowing “too easy,” said real estate broker Bruce Percelay in The Boston Globe. There’s been no similar backlash against borrowers, but there should be. “Like inebriated bar patrons who blame the bartender for serving them too much, a segment of today’s borrowers willfully chose to borrow beyond their means and are now blaming the lender.” These “predatory borrowers” are getting plenty of support from politicians, who, with an election year approaching, are much more eager to bash “faceless corporations” than hold individuals accountable for their bad decisions. Already, Washington is teeming with ideas for bailing out homeowners, “deserving or not.” But once the bailouts start, where do they end? “Should the government also provide a safety net to those in Las Vegas whose luck has gone sour at the poker table or unfortunate stock market investors whose risky stock purchases did not pan out?” If there must be a federal bailout for borrowers, it should carefully distinguish between “true victims” and “those who created their own house of cards.”
