Nothing Says "I'm Cool" Like a 16-Year-Old Movie Reference

I feel like I've had a lot of smart-alecky, critical, even petty posts lately, and I will try to limit them for the duration of the holiday season. Right after this post. 

The title of Tom Friedman's column today is, "China to the Rescue? Not!" Pop-culture references in news media are usually included, I suppose, to make an article or its author seem hipper, and to connect a younger audience to an ephemeral topic using a much more current one. Why, then, would you reference a movie that was making fun of dorks with catchphrases, and that came out in 1992? That may not be Friedman's doing (although it sure seems like stuff like that pops up more in his column than in, say, Gail Collins'), but whoever is responsible, that's just lame. 

The column, which focuses how the crisis will challenge the symmetry of the US-China relationship, is an interesting read. Like many articles that focus on China's economy, it makes the following claim as if it were a law of physics: China must sustain a "minimum [of] 8 percent growth it needs to maintain the political bargain between China’s leaders and led." 

The general idea behind this, that explosive economic growth is what has placated and distracted the Chinese from challenging their authoritarian political system, seems sound, but the idea that there is a floor for growth (be it 8, 9, or 10 percent) below which China will descend into anarchy gets tossed around a lot without much to support it.