At least now, when his reputation is somewhere near the septic tank.

You claimed that there is more freedom to discuss economic issues in China than in the West. FOARP rightly pointed out that this is untrue. However many people have been “lifted out of poverty” in China, it doesn’t excuse making untrue statements of this sort.

Can you please read articles you are supposed to be defending before you write them – it will lead to fewer mistakes. There is no discussion, not one word, of whether I can speak Chinese in the Global Times article.

As for the claim I have pretended I can speak Chinese this is risible. This is my weibo on 30 April 2012 (two and a half years ago) and repeated since : “No i don’t have a ghost writer. All the English words are by me. But I have to use an interpreter to translate into Chinese” Do you attempt to conceal something by posting it online in front of millions of people and when I have more than 200,000 followers on weibo myself?

Naturally when akaDashan said I had written something I had not written I had it checked – as I very frequently discuss in great detail with translators. I know I use very high quality native Chinese speaking interpreters but I initially read it myself using translation software for overall sense. I carefully checked with the original interpreter to make sure there was no ambiguity in Chinese which meant it said what akaDashan said. I then sent it to two other native Chinese language interpreters – being careful not to inform them of the opinion of anyone else. They both confirmed the Chinese did not say what akaDashan said.

akaDashan is well known to have outstanding Chinese language abilities for someone not Chinese. But if three native language Chinese interpreters independently say in this case it did not say what he said that is clear.

The Global Times article did however merely quote a right wing Observer political columnist on my economic writing rather than material I have already quoted at length. That is what is known in journalism as a cheap hatchet job. For why it was a cheap hatchet job please read my earlier responses.

I am well aware that when my economic analysis is shown to be more accurate than other peoples an attempt is made to try to change the subject – so I have been through this process before.

But I repeat, please read what you are attempting to defend before writing and you will make fewer errors.

“Being translated is not the same as ‘ghost written’.”

Indeed it is not. This may shock you, John, but amongst the myriad differences between you and Goethe in terms of talent and learning, is the fact that Goethe never sought to lecture his fellow Germans on their poor English ability and pass off English-language commentary that he could not even understand as his own.

In this case, what is going on IS ghost-writing since the Chinese-language output is (one hopes) not your own, due to the hateful and acist content it has included – including your talk of ‘eggs’ and ‘bananas’. Your attempt to hide the fact that this was going on by getting it censored from the GT article, and pose as a Chinese-speaker by lecturing Dashan and the BBC (amongst many others) on Chinese, is the most shameful kind of hypocrisy.

” I wrote in 1992, for example, an article stating that the economic reforms in China would be successful”

Yes, along with a large body of other economists (including the growth projections put forward in The Economist, and reproduced in Paul Kennedy’s 1987 book, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers) you predicted China’s economic growth. Well done. Now what exactly does this have to do with the accusation that you used your position to censored accurate reporting about yourself, reporting that included the statement (which you now admit was accurate) that you could not speak Chinese, and that you Chinese-language Weibo was written by your assistant?

“The reason I have supported the overall course of China’s economic policy is that China lifting 630 million people out of poverty is the greatest single contribution to human rights made by any country in the world”

You talk as though you were personally responsible for this. Again, the picture drawn in RFH’s article of a hubristic egomaniac is confirmed, and the accuracy of his piece supported.

“I am sorry but if 3 separate Chinese speakers confirm something was not said that is conclusive.”

I’m sorry, but if your assistant actually did write the phrase “banana” on your Weibo account, then I don’t need a translator to tell me that you have been allowing racist and hateful language to go out under your by-line – but then I bothered to learn Chinese before giving opinions on it.

Simple question John: If (as you now admit) the original GT piece was accurate in its portrayal of you as a non-Chinese speaker whose Chinese commentary is written for him by his assistant, why did you have it censored in the first place?

Its a hard gig, but you have now been elevated to the Inner Circle…. Shaun Rein, Mitch Mosely, CDE, the HH posse, etc.

To be honest, I am really fucking envious.

My mum always told me I would be a failure.

It was only a simple question regarding linguistics which he is entirely more capable of answering rather than yourself. The more you write, the more rope you give to hang yourself.

I think Mark made a mistake. My understanding is that they have the original meaning you referred to in the 1970s in Korea, Thailand, China etc

Do you or any others know when and why the meanings flipped, or was it just a US thing? I’m no expert but fascinated by linguistic turns, twists and travels.
Thank you.