I've had an article + commentary on the income gap sitting in my drafts folder for several days. The quake has made it difficult to write about the stuff I usually cover. Most of it seems kind of mundane in comparison to the drama out there.

Anyway, it occurs to me that the quake itself gives us the opportunity to revisit this issue from both sides. On the one hand, natural disasters are certainly the great leveler. Doesn't matter how much money you have if you are in the middle of a quake, a flood, a fire. We are all potentially at risk. Moreover, if we lose a family member, the effects are just as devastating notwithstanding our social standing and wealth.

On the other hand, how one copes with such tragedy can vary quite a lot depending on money and influence. Money can buy you safe passage out of a disaster zone to an excellent medical facility, a superlative hotel, etc. Money can buy a new home and new possessions, and a big investment portfolio is a great cushion to have when your primary source of income (i.e. your employer/business) has been destroyed.

All of this is being played out now in numerous ways. It's just another reason why these huge donations that have been made are so important. For all of those people who can't afford to cope in style, they need our assistance.

Moving on, and apologies for the abrupt change of tone to an economic policy and media discussion – I originally got turned on to this subject because of an article that came out a week or so ago. I immediately put this into the "incredibly obvious and not news" file (courtesy of the AP):

China must address a widening gap between its rich and poor if Beijing wants a "harmonious society," the World Trade Organization will report in a trade review of the Asian nation, according to a copy obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.

The global commerce body also urges China to increase spending on health, education and pensions so that people rely less on savings and consume more in the report. This would "reduce China's reliance on exports for growth, and hence its vulnerability to economic slowdowns abroad," it says.

"China needs to continue to address a number of important social and economic challenges, including various economic imbalances, which could jeopardize the economy's stability and thus the achievement of a 'harmonious society,'" says the 193-page report, which will be made public later this month.

I have not read the report of course [still haven't], but I've no doubt that this is a well done and interesting study. No problems there. I do find the AP article rather amusing, however. In my humble opinion, the income gap in China has certainly received its share of attention over the past few years. Moreover, I would be surprised if the WTO report actually positions itself as educating China that it needs to work on this problem to meet the goals of the "Harmonious Society" — I think that was one of the major points of the policy to begin with.

Calls for increased domestic spending is definitely nothing new and has been pushed ever since global imbalances became a popular topic of discussion. [Tragically, the quake presents another good reason to increase domestic government spending.]

My fundamental problem: the AP article makes it look as though the WTO is educating Beijing on basic economic policy, whereas in reality these policies have been in place for some time and have been discussed here for many, many years. Seemed a little condescending.

Perception is a funny thing. A related article in AFP, which discusses the WTO report in terms of China's export policy, is quite good in substance. However, as the article flashed on my feed aggregator, the first thing I saw was the headline: "China Export Regime 'Considerably More Restrictive': WTO". Sounds quite negative, doesn't it? Must be a bad thing, right? As the article correctly points out, export policy is being used to reduce the trade surplus and, in that sense, is a good thing. Currency liberalization would be better, but export policy is a good next-best option. So who writes these headlines, anyway?