Shanghai Daily news

To the untrained eye, an economist can hardly be wrong, because he often says something like the Earth is round.
To the trained eye, however, saying the Earth is round may simply divert attention from the real question of whether the ground in your courtyard is round or square.
Professor Li Yining, a renowned economist at Beijing University and a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, sometimes provides a case in point.
You cannot fault him for his statement this month that "there's no real estate bubble across China," or his statement last year that "killing the rich won't save the poor."
Of course there is no nationwide real estate bubble if we consider the vast rural area where 900 million farmers have yet to join the hustle and bustle of the urban world.
Of course the poor will still be poor even though the rich are dead.
So why did Li say something that no one would argue about?
Does he have a hidden agenda?
Before Li, few economists mentioned a nationwide real estate bubble. They were concerned only with a few cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou and Wenzhou.
It is not sure whether these places really have a bubble, but everyone agrees the bubble can't be nationwide.
Li's remark could have a message for policymakers: Don't take drastic measures that will affect the whole country's real estate business. Let those few cities fix their own problems, if any.
Li admitted housing prices in Beijing and Shanghai are a bit high. But the absence of a nationwide bubble does not mean prices are not too high in a third or fourth city. Li didn't mention other cities.
Now let's turn to his words about the rich and the poor.
He was opposing progressive tax rates on personal income. But will progressive rates, as adopted in the United States and many other Western countries, "kill" the rich?
Of course not. The rich remain alive and kicking. Such rates make the society fairer and more harmonious without having to bankrupt anyone.
Hundreds of people on the Internet have scorned Li for speaking for the super rich. Many reports have alleged since 1999 that Li's remarks seek to influence policymakers in a way that would benefit his son's business in Shenzhen.
I will not take sides in this issue. I mention it only to record the history.
I care about Li because he is not just any economist. He was a member of the standing committee of China's top legislature, the National People's Congress, for 15 years from 1988. This year he became a member of the CPPCC.
I have no wish to join in emotional mudslinging or support the unsubstantiated allegation that Li speaks for the rich or his son in particular.
I simply question why he makes pointless arguments about real estate and progressive tax rates.
History may give us a hint. In an interview with the Economic Daily, a mainstream national newspaper, in 2002, Li said tourism could prosper in a few regions but not across the country.
But housing construction, he said, could be a new growth engine for the national economy. He said he had heard that more than 1 million Hong Kong people would like to buy a second house in Shenzhen.
He went on to suggest that all Chinese people should be encouraged to buy a second house or apartment. For example, he said, all of us could buy a second house on Hainan Island.
Even if I holiday in Hainan once a year, do I need a permanent house there? And all Chinese people should buy a second house there?
Having a second house, especially one in a famous beach resort, remains a dream for many Westerners, let alone most Chinese who are already deeply indebted to banks for their first houses.
This month, Li said a good economist has to endure pressure from the Internet. What pressure?
If he believes Net criticism has no merit, he will feel no pressure at all.
Even Premier Wen Jiabao said on Monday that he was deeply moved by Netizens' words and concerns. Surely not all the words were flattering.