NationStates Jolt Archive

(Sorry, couldn't find a non-liberal news media source) :rolleyes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/12/14/china.economy.reut/index.html

BEIJING, China (Reuters) -- China is likely to declare itself the world's fourth largest economy next week, having leapfrogged Italy, France and Britain, helped by a likely huge revision of its gross domestic product figures.
.
.
.
Dong Tao, chief economist for non-Japan Asia at Credit Suisse First Boston (Hong Kong) Ltd, said China's GDP would still be understated even if it was revised up by $300 billion.

"There's a massive under-reporting of GDP in the service sector," Tao said.

He cited the relatively low quality of data collection in China as one reason for that. Economists have long pointed to shortcomings in China's statistics, due to a central planning legacy that put priority on collecting data on the production of physical goods from state-owned enterprises.

Tao said another reason was that many service enterprises fall through the statisticians' net because they fail to report income for tax reasons.

Wow, from 7th to 4th, overtaking every individual European country (unless Germany is world number 3). I can't imagine what environmental stresses and economic distortions will result from further growth in a finite world, but well done all the same. I hope America and Japan aren't afraid of a little friendly competition. ;)

It was only a matter of time before this happened. Europe is in economic decline and china is on the up plus shes huge...

Kudos to them...

This is going to fuck China like they stole something if they fail to maintain their growth.

This is going to fuck China like they stole something if they fail to maintain their growth.
Well, infinite growth is impossible in a finite world. You either reach steady-state, or you burn out and die. The UK's forecast is 1.75% or so, Europe as a whole is hovering around that 2% mark. China can't maintain double-digit growth forever, not without rendering the planet uninhabitable within our lifetimes, but once they reach a certain level of development, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to slow down with no ill effects. Europe and the US haven't had social implosions just because their economies are moving along at a relaxed pace.

In Economic decline? Maybe it's because every country in Europe has at less the third of the population of the US or a less than a tenth of the population of China. Old Europe may be in decline, but the UK seems to be doing alright.

Anyway, India is the country that looks set to become pretty major. Seeing as it actually has hi-tech firms that want to patent stuff, whereas China is just used to make stuff. China can only go so far if doesn't start investing in a climate hospitable to research. The researchers will probably get higher paid.

I believe the problem with the economic climate at the moment is that China and India can produce much of the luxury items that the west consumes, but hardly any of the population of these countries get to consume these items. So India and China can sell to the west, but no vice versa. As these populations are slowly bought out of poverty (assured in democratic India, but I'm not too sure about China), these countries will lose there competitive edge and global economy will balance out.

I sincerely doubt that competition at this level is the least bit friendly. The West will always have trouble with competitors who think in the long term.

I sincerely doubt that competition at this level is the least bit friendly. The West will always have trouble with competitors who think in the long term.
Cheaper products.

I just wanna see how long this commie-capitalism can really last.

I just wanna see how long this commie-capitalism can really last.
China is no longer communist, it no longer retains anything but the most cosmetic features of communism. They haven't been communist for a decade. They are a capitalist fascist one-party state.

The only reason they still call themselves communist, is that a formal recognition of reality will bring the system down. Accepting the end of communism is a discontinuity which would wreck the fragile stability of the political system and economy. And now they're so big, ours too. Let them keep the red flag, it's just a symbol now.

BTW, Infinite Dunes is correct in saying that India is attracting most of the R&D investment of the two. But it's a matter of time really. South Korea and Japan were a joke a generation ago, look at their high-tech industries now.

For some reason I find the phrase 'non-Japan Asia' quite amusing.

For some reason I find the phrase 'non-Japan Asia' quite amusing.
I'm assuming the division is named thus, because Japan is important enough to have their own division.

I'd still rather live in the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Holland, Sweden &c. even though china's economy is now "bigger." I am sure the 800,000,000 odd chinese who live as barely better than subsitence farmers would too.

Still, if this sort of propaganda makes them happy, whatever.

Seriously though, they better start spending some of this new found cash on addressing the urban/rural divide thing however, or they are going to get another revolution.

We'd better start building up our military forces.

We'd better start building up our military forces.
So, no "well done with embracing capitalism at last"?

So, no "well done with embracing capitalism at last"?

As long as they consider us their enemy, we should be prepared for the worst.

Of course even if china becomes the number one world economy, it won't be the first time. After all they were probably the worlds number one economy for the majority of the past two millenia. It didn't help them much then either.

Look at the big picture. It's economics. Either way, it'll help the world, so there's no big repurcussions.

As long as they consider us their enemy, we should be prepared for the worst.Why would they fight us, when they can just buy us? In fact they're doing so already.

So, no "well done with embracing capitalism at last"?

I've never had a problem with China's people, or its economical and social model, it's their human and civil rights record.

Fuck China, fuck it right in the eye. It sucks.

Why would they fight us, when they can just buy us? In fact they're doing so already.

:headbang: No. They are still actually quite poor, there is just a lot of them. The west still has far more spare cash floating around.

Elgesh']I've never had a problem with China's people, or its economical and social model, it's their human and civil rights record.
Well hey, the West didn't get to where it is today by respecting people's right to exist. China's record is actually better than Europe's or America's - they went to feudalism to where they are today, without genocide.

Well hey, the West didn't get to where it is today by respecting people's right to exist. China's record is actually better than Europe's or America's - they went to feudalism to where they are today, without genocide.

So 40+ million deaths (under Mao) isn't genocide?

:headbang: No. They are still actually quite poor, there is just a lot of them. The west still has far more spare cash floating around.They may be quite poor, but they're buying up businesses here like it's candy. And they're also financing the USA's national debt for a large part.

Well hey, the West didn't get to where it is today by respecting people's right to exist. China's record is actually better than Europe's or America's - they went to feudalism to where they are today, without genocide.

Taiwan, Tiannamen Square, Tibet...

Those are just the start of the 'T's! :p

For once, I wasn't talking in a historical context, but about living memory and more the present day. <shrugs> The Chinese government is wicked. It upsets me to see the Olympics etc. being held there, my governemt cosying up to them, how internationally accepted it is etc.

I suppose the only way to change it outside of force (no chance! military/economic considerations make it a non-starter, obviously, I know!) is influence, 'soft' diplomacy. But to see a state like that welcomed and patted on the back just because it'd be economically damaging to you treat it any other way... it's not right.

Why are we still citing the death figures from the 60es and 70es when even the Chinese themselves clearly acknowledge that the Cultural Revolution was an unfortunate occurrence and that many people did perish during that time period?

They may be quite poor, but they're buying up businesses here like it's candy. And they're also financing the USA's national debt for a large part.

They hold 2% of the US national debt. They purchase a lot of the deficit to keep their currency low with respect to the dollar.

BTW, Infinite Dunes is correct in saying that India is attracting most of the R&D investment of the two. But it's a matter of time really. South Korea and Japan were a joke a generation ago, look at their high-tech industries now.
Pssh, you're probably right, but I feel highly irrational tonight. Humanity can go suck arse. Humanity wouldn't be such a problem if they were so easily scared. People are sheep, even Christianity figured that out and calls to you be be part of their flock. But I'm proud to be one of the damn goats, and it's a long way down the mountain if you come anywhere near my rocky outcrop (I recently obliged a Jehovah's witness. An apt description for her, as for most as well, would be 'Tim, nice but dim'). Sorry about that off-topic rant, but only if you highlight this text

So 40+ million deaths (under Mao) isn't genocide?

Genocide only occurs when you do it to other people, apparently. I imagine if hitler hadn't invaded poland, he could have killed all the jews he wanted.

Sucks, but there it is.

Get your act togethar Europe! We need you to replace the US when we're no longer world supper power. We'd much rather have you than those commies.

We'd better start building up our military forces.
yes, the arms races worked so well in the first half of the 20th century :rolleyes:


this is only to be expected. just a lot sooner seeing how we were told at uni (studying economics) that this would happen in perhaps 30-35 years... hmm.

but this can't be good for the environment. two of the top 3 economies in the world not signing up to the kyoto aggreement... bad things are afoot.

Let's put it into perspective, vigorous efforts were made over many years, to wipe North America, South America and Australia clean of indiginous human life, in addition to using Africa as a source of compliant slave labour and subjecting the Indian subcontinent to around two centuries of economic dominion. China itself was attacked because it refused to participate in the drugs trade. Not satisfied with this, Europe undertook expensive efforts to establish a new standard of ethnic purity, costing 56 million lives, within the memory of my living grandparents. Recognising the modern political landscape, we have now outsourced our traditional methods of coercion.

China invaded some grasslands, outlawed a religious sect, killed a few thousand protestors, and keeps threatening a small island nation.

You know what? Meh. Their human rights record is better than ours. For sheer quantity of shit carried out all over the planet, the West wins hands down, even with whatever happens in the next century taken into account. I am not going to lecture them on political morality, with my awareness of where mine and my nation's wealth comes from.

So 40+ million deaths (under Mao) isn't genocide?

No they were Greedy Capitalist Pigs who got what they had comming. :rolleyes:

Let's put it into perspective...

You know what? Meh. Their human rights record is better than ours. For sheer quantity of shit carried out all over the planet, the West wins hands down, even with whatever happens in the next century taken into account. I am not going to lecture them on political morality, with my awareness of where mine and my nation's wealth comes from.


You're talking about things that happened up to 300 years ago! China's human rights record is no better than the Nazis, but we're _fine_ with it... the present government is the direct inheritor (unlike Germany and the nazi govt. they once had) of abuses that have been ongoing for the past 50 years, all within living memory.

Any sane person deplores what the west did, and is glad it doesn't happen anymore. Here. Why should it be so awful to comment and protest on the same appalling things that are happening _now_?

I'm all for abandoning cultural centricity, but not at the expense of common morality.

Let's put it into perspective, vigorous efforts were made over many years, to wipe North America, South America and Australia clean of indiginous human life, in addition to using Africa as a source of compliant slave labour and subjecting the Indian subcontinent to around two centuries of economic dominion. China itself was attacked because it refused to participate in the drugs trade. Not satisfied with this, Europe undertook expensive efforts to establish a new standard of ethnic purity, costing 56 million lives, within the memory of my living grandparents. Recognising the modern political landscape, we have now outsourced our traditional methods of coercion.

China invaded some grasslands, outlawed a religious sect, killed a few thousand protestors, and keeps threatening a small island nation.

You know what? Meh. Their human rights record is better than ours. For sheer quantity of shit carried out all over the planet, the West wins hands down, even with whatever happens in the next century taken into account. I am not going to lecture them on political morality, with my awareness of where mine and my nation's wealth comes from.


Read "Hungry Ghosts" by jasper becker.

other than that i kinda agree with you, i'm going to be a forgein exchange student there in around 2007.

Wow, from 7th to 4th, overtaking every individual European country (unless Germany is world number 3). I can't imagine what environmental stresses and economic distortions will result from further growth in a finite world, but well done all the same. I hope America and Japan aren't afraid of a little friendly competition. ;)competition in what? do you think there is some award for being the biggest economy? do you think people in luxembourg and monaco are bad off, because their economies are so small?
countries inflating their gdp is not a threat or something bad for others, on the contrary. the more products the chinese produce, the more people can acquire these and the more money the chinese have, the more goods they can buy from others. it is great for everybody.

So 40+ million deaths (under Mao) isn't genocide?

First off, no... no it's not genocide. Genocide is the killing of a single race or ethnicity. Where as that was more like driving a car a little too hard, you drive it too hard and the thing starts to have some problems. Besides, millions of people died in the formation of the United States, it just took longer. For example: Native Americans, Africans, Immigrants, and the list goes on. In fact, when the US government killed tons of Native Americans THAT would be considered genocide. All in all China is much better off with a Communist government (yes, they're leadership is Communist, they just have a Capitalist sector.) than with the Imperial Chinese government. Somehow it seems that whenever a Communist Country springs up somewhere on Earth, the west always finds a way to keep it down. Trade embargos, tarrifs, even military actions. That's odd seeing as how the United States is "fighting for freedom", they keep destroying countries that don't use an "acceptable" economic system. The United States is fighting for control of the world economy, NOT FOR FREEDOM. So all of you God bless America, Red White and Blue coming out of your ass, morons spare me. I salute China, they beat the US trade embargos and tarrifs, good for them.

Elgesh']I'm all for abandoning cultural centricity, but not at the expense of common morality.
We have not abandoned that past. We have simply outsourced it. If some country falls out of line, we don't send colonial soldiers there, we pay the local troublemakers (government or anti-government as appropriate) to kick some ass. Much of South America's history after WW2 was exactly that. Israel was armed to act as an insurance policy. The Vietnam war grew out of the failure of the South to act as a competent proxy force, and the abuses of the South mirrored that of the North. Iraq was armed and sent to fight Iran. Afghans were paid to fight the USSR. Now we're looking at war with the whole lot. And all this on other people's territory. We have achieved so much more than China. Their military influence outside their own borders has been negligible.

Elgesh']You're talking about things that happened up to 300 years ago! China's human rights record is no better than the Nazis, but we're _fine_ with it...
So i take it as that the Chinese government is in denial about the Holocaust too?

I just want to address some of the misconceptions i am seeing here.

"No. They are still actually quite poor, there is just a lot of them. The west still has far more spare cash floating around."

China is no longer a poor nation anymore. Its a lower-middle income nation.

"poor" is when a nations GDP per capita are less then $1000. It crossed that line around the year 2000.

Another misconception is that China only export based. This is simply not true. China's new middle class is over 300 million now. There is now very strong domestic demand for goods and services in China.

it seems that whenever a Communist Country springs up somewhere on Earth, the west always finds a way to keep it down. Trade embargos, tarrifs, even military actions. That's odd seeing as how the United States is "fighting for freedom", they keep destroying countries that don't use an "acceptable" economic system.

It's not really odd once you consider the fact that Communist nations are little more than totalitarian autocracies with an excessive amount of PR.

Oh wait, those weren't real Communists. Sorry :p

IMO:

China pretty much invented politics and bureaucracy as we know it today, so it should be no surprise that their communist government is just as corrupt, dishonest, determined, and ruthless as all their other governments have been. The revolution is over. If they have to go fascist and capitalist to secure the victory of communism over capitalism, then that's what they will do, dammit. And that's just what they are doing. Once the "take over" (which will be temporary and conceptual only) is complete, communism will probably be allowed its over-due slow death. They just want to say they won the Cold War after all.

They may well turn out to be the last super power, because the world seems to be trending away from big powers and centralized/concentrated power structures.

In the short term, though, the environment will suffer and so will workers' conditions in many countries.

I just want to address some of the misconceptions i am seeing here.

"No. They are still actually quite poor, there is just a lot of them. The west still has far more spare cash floating around."

China is no longer a poor nation anymore. Its a lower-middle income nation.

"poor" is when a nations GDP per capita are less then $1000. It crossed that line around the year 2000.

Another misconception is that China only export based. This is simply not true. China's new middle class is over 300 million now. There is now very strong domestic demand for goods and services in China.
China is one of the largest and fastest growing markets for high-end consumer goods, and the largest market for Wal-mart, which is the world's biggest retailer of Chinese-made products, and which is about to become an object lesson in real-politik as the Chinese government just about 2 weeks ago held a trade show in New York touting Chinese brands and companies for direct sales in the US -- i.e., cutting out the middle-man -- i.e, Wal-mart. Thanks for your assistance. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, capitalist running dog.

Macchiavelli lives. :D

First off, no... no it's not genocide. Genocide is the killing of a single race or ethnicity. Where as that was more like driving a car a little too hard, you drive it too hard and the thing starts to have some problems. Besides, millions of people died in the formation of the United States, it just took longer. For example: Native Americans, Africans, Immigrants, and the list goes on. In fact, when the US government killed tons of Native Americans THAT would be considered genocide. All in all China is much better off with a Communist government (yes, they're leadership is Communist, they just have a Capitalist sector.) than with the Imperial Chinese government. Somehow it seems that whenever a Communist Country springs up somewhere on Earth, the west always finds a way to keep it down. Trade embargos, tarrifs, even military actions. That's odd seeing as how the United States is "fighting for freedom", they keep destroying countries that don't use an "acceptable" economic system. The United States is fighting for control of the world economy, NOT FOR FREEDOM. So all of you God bless America, Red White and Blue coming out of your ass, morons spare me. I salute China, they beat the US trade embargos and tarrifs, good for them.

er im pretty sure that no matter how badly you drive ur car you could never kill 40 thousdand people. course im Canadian so I dont think much of the US either but I wouldn't support the Chinese government either as they are a dictatorship and do not have even two parties.

I just want to address some of the misconceptions i am seeing here.

"No. They are still actually quite poor, there is just a lot of them. The west still has far more spare cash floating around."

China is no longer a poor nation anymore. Its a lower-middle income nation.

"poor" is when a nations GDP per capita are less then $1000. It crossed that line around the year 2000.

Another misconception is that China only export based. This is simply not true. China's new middle class is over 300 million now. There is now very strong domestic demand for goods and services in China.

the gdp per capita maybe 1000 but what percentage of their population is below the poverty line? GDP per capita is great in some ways but when theres such a large devide between the upper and lower classes (as in china) it does't really tell you much

(sry DP)

Why are we still citing the death figures from the 60es and 70es when even the Chinese themselves clearly acknowledge that the Cultural Revolution was an unfortunate occurrence and that many people did perish during that time period?

No.

Mao is still a venerated figure and talking about the cultural revolution, the great leap forward and the destruciton that Mao's policies brought upon the peasantry is still a taboo subject. Chinese students are fed on a heavy dose of nationalism.

Elgesh']You're talking about things that happened up to 300 years ago! ...

... of abuses that have been ongoing for the past 50 years.

Any sane person deplores what the west did, and is glad it doesn't happen anymore. Here. Why should it be so awful to comment and protest on the same appalling things that are happening _now_? you are free to comment and Protest atrocities from 50.. 300.. or 1000 years ago...

protest all you want.. Just do not pretend "the West" has never done worse...

just the en-slaving of Africa alone... is worse than anything the Chinese has ever done.

I believe the problem with the economic climate at the moment is that China and India can produce much of the luxury items that the west consumes, but hardly any of the population of these countries get to consume these items. So India and China can sell to the west, but no vice versa. As these populations are slowly bought out of poverty (assured in democratic India, but I'm not too sure about China), these countries will lose there competitive edge and global economy will balance out.

Not anymore.

In another five years, China is set to become India's largest trading partner.

I am predicting that in another 15 years, India will become China's largest trading partner.

"Chindia" - is not just a figment of imagination. If the west (read US) keeps pushing India on denying energy security and continue propping up Pakistan as part of "containment"/"balance of power" policies of yore, India might as well seek a strategic accomodation with China.

The Chinese are no angels and in many ways they were and are our biggest security threat, but there is a saying in my native tongue "sometime it is better to surrender to the enemy than to keep begging the witness (in a court dispute scenario)".

Mao is still a venerated figure and talking about the cultural revolution, the great leap forward and the destruciton that Mao's policies brought upon the peasantry is still a taboo subject. Chinese students are fed on a heavy dose of nationalism.
And this is any different anywhere else? I doubt you will find any balance and objectivity in any domestic political science class. The Japanese brush over their war crimes in WW2, the British Empire is only covered in certain A-Level History syllabuses here in the UK, which few students choose. The American genocide against the natives (smallpox blankets and reservations 4tw) probably doesn't stir much interest in the US. India and Pakistan, their orgy of destruction post-independence? Soviet food requisitions in the Ukraine? Who learns about all that? We've all got nastiness in our past, we all prefer to ignore it. You wish to hold one nation to a higher standard?

Oh and when comparing economies, please use PPP terms (Purchasing Power Parity) also. A dollar in China buys you a heck more than a dollar in the US.

GDP in dollar terms alone does not give the right picture.

the gdp per capita maybe 1000 but what percentage of their population is below the poverty line? GDP per capita is great in some ways but when theres such a large devide between the upper and lower classes (as in china) it does't really tell you much

(sry DP)
Thanks to the new revisions its $1740 per capita and will hit $2000 in a few years(barring economic desaster) :P

but yes there is a great divide in income equality.

And this is any different anywhere else? I doubt you will find any balance and objectivity in any domestic political science class.

It is the heaviest dose.

A pew poll did indicate that.

Indoctrination and selective teaching of past is there in many countries, but in those countries, the students do have the freedom to obtain information from other sources..books and internet.

But in China, you don't. I know of Chinese who come to US and then come to know that millions died during cultural revolution. They were in the US for their master's.

It is the heaviest dose, believe me.

you are free to comment and Protest atrocities from 50.. 300.. or 1000 years ago...

protest all you want.. Just do not pretend "the West" has never done worse...

just the en-slaving of Africa alone... is worse than anything the Chinese has ever done.

Not being an idiot, I don't pretend to any of the weird, weird assumptions you list here.

I'm sorry, but there's a fundamental difference between anguish over historical awfulness and modern day abuses; it is at least theoretically possible to stop ongoing abuses, and hold those responsible to account!

I don't think that Chairman Mao intended to kill 40 million or whatever the number is. Most of it was from the botched "Great Leap Forward", or what I prefer to refer to as the "Great Backwards Fall".

Elgesh']Not being an idiot, I don't pretend to any of the weird, weird assumptions you list here.

I'm sorry, but there's a fundamental difference between anguish over historical awfulness and modern day abuses; it is at least theoretically possible to stop ongoing abuses, and hold those responsible to account!

And durign that time, that was the present. There's no difference whatsoever. Having something happen in a modern era and something in a past era is no difference.

I don't think that Chairman Mao intended to kill 40 million or whatever the number is. Most of it was from the botched "Great Leap Forward", or what I prefer to refer to as the "Great Backwards Fall".

He did not intend to. He had tried to force China into a quick economic rise, and he did it by assigning smaller sections in China, in hopes of putting it all together like a puzzle. However, not every section produced what was up to what was wanted, and they didn't want to face punishment, so they lied about their production. In assumption, demands increased, while there was not alot of production (or not enough) to begin with. This is what caused the deaths; incompetency. He's not on a spectrum of evil, like Hitler nor Nero whom killed with a dangerous intent.

And durign that time, that was the present. There's no difference whatsoever. Having something happen in a modern era and something in a past era is no difference.
??!:eek:

There's a fundamental and obvious difference. I've pointed it out. You are clearly ignoring it. Stop a current abuse? Possible. Stop an abuse that happened hundred of years ago? Not possible.

er im pretty sure that no matter how badly you drive ur car you could never kill 40 thousdand people. course im Canadian so I dont think much of the US either but I wouldn't support the Chinese government either as they are a dictatorship and do not have even two parties.


Ok, lets get one thing straight. The thing I said about driving a car too hard was...get this... wait for it... A METAPHOR. Wow, now that we cleared that up I think things will go a little more smoothly. Communist governments tend to start in countries with great civil unrest, so when they start building the nation from what ever war they went through to acheive victory, they usually push for reconstruction. Sometimes they do this a little too hard, but so does EVERY nation. The building of the Trans-Continental Railroad cost a lot of immigrant lives for a lot less of an acheivement. The Soviets, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, all of these countries went through a tough period of time right when they started. But so did the United States, Mexico, and a lot of other western nations. And by the way, having one political party is better than having two puppet parties that are basically the same thing. The whole election system is complete bullshit. At least when the Chinese do something, they do things without having to make up a story about "WMDs" or Terrorists. They just roll in and take a place... the way things are supposed to be handled. Thinking I actually meant one could kill 40 million people with a car...:headbang: man, how do some people manage to breath?

Elgesh']??!:eek:

There's a fundamental and obvious difference. I've pointed it out. You are clearly ignoring it. Stop a current abuse? Possible. Stop an abuse that happened hundred of years ago? Not possible.

A current abuse is an abuse that's already happened. There's no difference. Unless you can see in the future and find out when abuses happen when before they do, then there's no stopping it. You can try to minimize it, but you can't stop it, and it would only cause more abuses.

I'd rather wait to make that statement. China's got some serious structural problems in its economic growth that might threaten to derail it, and the economic effects of further yuan revaluation are still unknown. Overall, I'd say the British economy is stronger because it is much more stable and established.

A current abuse is an abuse that's already happened. There's no difference. Unless you can see in the future and find out when abuses happen when before they do, then there's no stopping it. You can try to minimize it, but you can't stop it, and it would only cause more abuses.

No offence to you, but sometimes it's not worth playing :) This is getting ridiculous. You know exactly what I mean. Oh well, I'm away.

I have no idea if China will ever overtake Japan and America, but at some stage of its growth, it will slow down. There are far too many state controls to make growth sustainable, especially in banking. And now that more Chinese know about the outside world, we will start to see political change in a generation or so. I hope it's peaceful, but there's no gurantee. As we well know, China has fragmented several times in its recent history.

There are far too many state controls to make growth sustainable, especially in banking.
Says conventional theory, which might turn out to be wrong...you can never just exclude something, because this sort of economic system that China is becoming has only twice really been tried before...in Italy and Germany. And at least in Germany it was something of a great success.

Says conventional theory, which might turn out to be wrong...you can never just exclude something, because this sort of economic system that China is becoming has only twice really been tried before...in Italy and Germany. And at least in Germany it was something of a great success.
There is a blaring difference, however, and that is the political systems. Germany and Italy are both liberal democracies. China is neither liberal nor democratic, and it's gonna cost them later on. Besides, I personally believe that the move towards liberal democracy by any society is inevitable.

There is a blaring difference, however, and that is the political systems. Germany and Italy are both liberal democracies. China is neither liberal nor democratic, and it's gonna cost them later on. Besides, I personally believe that the move towards liberal democracy by any society is inevitable.
I was more thinking Fascism.

You get the public motivated using Nationalism and that sort of thing, and use cooperation between big business and big labour to work towards some sort of prescribed government policy, allthewhile still leaving business with the choice how exactly to achieve these goals.
Very much top-down, but Nazi Economics was surprisingly effective at what it was meant to do, which was primarily to prepare and conduct a war.

China is no longer communist, it no longer retains anything but the most cosmetic features of communism. They haven't been communist for a decade. They are a capitalist fascist one-party state.

The only reason they still call themselves communist, is that a formal recognition of reality will bring the system down. Accepting the end of communism is a discontinuity which would wreck the fragile stability of the political system and economy. And now they're so big, ours too. Let them keep the red flag, it's just a symbol now.


Nice way sum up China's political process. This is exactly what it is. I wonder what type of effects this will have once the general population realizes they are ruled in this manner.

There is a blaring difference, however, and that is the political systems. Germany and Italy are both liberal democracies. China is neither liberal nor democratic, and it's gonna cost them later on. Besides, I personally believe that the move towards liberal democracy by any society is inevitable.

Taiwan and South Korea were neither Liberal or Democratic. They were both oppressive dictatorships until the late 1980's, they silenced dissidents, tortured, executed people. etc

example - "The tension burst out into the open in the February 28th Incident of 1947, when a small incident in Taipei led to large-scale demonstrations. The Kuomintang was initially taken aback, but secretly sent troops from China, which started to round up and execute a whole generation of leading figures, students, lawyers, doctors. In all between 18.000 and 28.000 people were killed, and during the "white terror" of the following years, thousands of people were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by the KMT's highly efficient KGB-machine, the Taiwan Garrison Command."

There was also the Kwangju Massacre is South Korea were government troops open fired on a PRO-DEMOCRACY up-rising killing 500-2000 people in 1980.

and yet the Tiananmen Massacre gets all the focus because is was committed by a "Communist" regime.

China is much like both South Korea and Taiwan in the 1970's. Oppressive, yet progressive economic regime that is slowly increasing social and economic rights. China can make the transition to a liberal democracy, however it will be a longer process because China is so diverse and tentions are high.

I have no idea if China will ever overtake Japan and America, but at some stage of its growth, it will slow down. There are far too many state controls to make growth sustainable, especially in banking. And now that more Chinese know about the outside world, we will start to see political change in a generation or so. I hope it's peaceful, but there's no gurantee. As we well know, China has fragmented several times in its recent history.

I find that most Chinese students have no interest in politics at all, which is sad. The reason is simple, there is no way to change things, so why should they try. Like you said, hopefully that will change with the next generation that is richer, more liberated and less welling to toe the line.

If economic strength is GDP I got news for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29

I'm not going to be impressed until I see some MAJOR political reform happening over there.

BTW, Mao IS in the same league as Stalin/Hitler. 70 million dead under his rule should at least grant him that dubious honour.

Elgesh']No offence to you, but sometimes it's not worth playing :) This is getting ridiculous. You know exactly what I mean. Oh well, I'm away.

Yaya. You know I'm right ;)

China is no longer communist, it no longer retains anything but the most cosmetic features of communism. They haven't been communist for a decade. They are a capitalist fascist one-party state.


I would say that it is both communist and capitalist.

Coastal China, especially the pearl river delta is brutally capitalist..a capitalist paradise, so to speak. So much so that the workers have no rights and capitalists are absolutely free to do their business as they see fit. No overtime, no benefits, no regulated pay structure, fire at will etc..

Interior China is still among the dirt poor areas of the world. Heavy subsidization and control from the central machinery. The corrupt behemoths called SOEs (state owned enterprises) occupy all business space there with almost nil private participation.

Oh and when comparing economies, please use PPP terms (Purchasing Power Parity) also. A dollar in China buys you a heck more than a dollar in the US.

GDP in dollar terms alone does not give the right picture.

Well by that measure, China is number 2. (And India number 4).

I think India could be in better shape going forward though.

Genocide only occurs when you do it to other people, apparently. I imagine if hitler hadn't invaded poland, he could have killed all the jews he wanted.

Genocide: The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the term as: Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

http://www.facsnet.org/issues/specials/kosovo/glossary.php3

Tianamen was the forcible put down of riots/protests, but hardly genocide.

Wow, from 7th to 4th, overtaking every individual European country (unless Germany is world number 3). I can't imagine what environmental stresses and economic distortions will result from further growth in a finite world, but well done all the same. I hope America and Japan aren't afraid of a little friendly competition.
China's always historically had the world's largest economy. Welcome back to the Middle Ages.

India will eventually do better, as their management is better trained. Their population is also predicted to surpass China's, which will make their economy even more robust.

But I've always figured that the EU has the truely biggest economy. Its not really fair to measure individual European economies against China, India, and the US anymore.

Taiwan and South Korea were neither Liberal or Democratic. They were both oppressive dictatorships until the late 1980's, they silenced dissidents, tortured, executed people. etc

example - "The tension burst out into the open in the February 28th Incident of 1947, when a small incident in Taipei led to large-scale demonstrations. The Kuomintang was initially taken aback, but secretly sent troops from China, which started to round up and execute a whole generation of leading figures, students, lawyers, doctors. In all between 18.000 and 28.000 people were killed, and during the "white terror" of the following years, thousands of people were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by the KMT's highly efficient KGB-machine, the Taiwan Garrison Command."

There was also the Kwangju Massacre is South Korea were government troops open fired on a PRO-DEMOCRACY up-rising killing 500-2000 people in 1980.

and yet the Tiananmen Massacre gets all the focus because is was committed by a "Communist" regime.

China is much like both South Korea and Taiwan in the 1970's. Oppressive, yet progressive economic regime that is slowly increasing social and economic rights. China can make the transition to a liberal democracy, however it will be a longer process because China is so diverse and tentions are high.
good INFORMATIVE post... we'll see if someone replies to it
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10104790&postcount=67

Taiwan and South Korea were neither Liberal or Democratic. They were both oppressive dictatorships until the late 1980's, they silenced dissidents, tortured, executed people. etc

example - "The tension burst out into the open in the February 28th Incident of 1947, when a small incident in Taipei led to large-scale demonstrations. The Kuomintang was initially taken aback, but secretly sent troops from China, which started to round up and execute a whole generation of leading figures, students, lawyers, doctors. In all between 18.000 and 28.000 people were killed, and during the "white terror" of the following years, thousands of people were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by the KMT's highly efficient KGB-machine, the Taiwan Garrison Command."

There was also the Kwangju Massacre is South Korea were government troops open fired on a PRO-DEMOCRACY up-rising killing 500-2000 people in 1980.

and yet the Tiananmen Massacre gets all the focus because is was committed by a "Communist" regime.

China is much like both South Korea and Taiwan in the 1970's. Oppressive, yet progressive economic regime that is slowly increasing social and economic rights. China can make the transition to a liberal democracy, however it will be a longer process because China is so diverse and tentions are high.

South Korea and Taiwan were much smaller countries both in population and area, making a transition easier. China is much larger and more diverse, and even you stated that tensions will run higher. I believe that violence is not impossible, and even downright fragmentation. The transition, I believe, is happening before our eyes, and should be the biggest security concern in East Asia. If it becomes a liberal democracy (or even a Singapore style semi-democracy), the world will be better off. If not, it may lead to the greatest security situation there since WWII.

I was more thinking Fascism.

You get the public motivated using Nationalism and that sort of thing, and use cooperation between big business and big labour to work towards some sort of prescribed government policy, allthewhile still leaving business with the choice how exactly to achieve these goals.
Very much top-down, but Nazi Economics was surprisingly effective at what it was meant to do, which was primarily to prepare and conduct a war.
The Chinese economy is not quite like that. Sure, military spending has upped a bit, but for the most part, it's consumer goods they are making. Besides, there is no cult figure in government, or mandatory enlistment in some nationalistic club, or total media censorship, or any crap like that. If you are suggesting that the Chinese are fascists, they are not. They are merely running a dictatorship

The Chinese economy is not quite like that.
Not completely, but I doubt it'll be fully freed up anytime soon. I think the Government has got long-term plans for the destiny of China (and themselves) and they're afraid that too much liberalisation will mean deviation from those plans.

Sure, military spending has upped a bit, but for the most part, it's consumer goods they are making.
Yes, but there is significant government involvement, and not to protect the working classes. It's often what I would call a fascist economic policy.

Besides, there is no cult figure in government, or mandatory enlistment in some nationalistic club, or total media censorship, or any crap like that.
Have you spoken to someone from mainland China recently? They are rather patriotic these days - not to say nationalistic.

Not completely, but I doubt it'll be fully freed up anytime soon. I think the Government has got long-term plans for the destiny of China (and themselves) and they're afraid that too much liberalisation will mean deviation from those plans.
Of course they have plans. Doesn't mean they'll work.
Have you spoken to someone from mainland China recently? They are rather patriotic these days - not to say nationalistic.
They are not the same in my mind. I think you have a different definition of fascism than I do. In any case, the Chinese have a right to be nationalistic. Look at what they achieved and are achieving. They will probably become the world's largest economy in twenty years, if not sooner.

They are not the same in my mind. I think you have a different definition of fascism than I do.
Maybe...
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
http://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rmscheck/GermanyE6.html

But there's many definitions, made up by different people. I generally stick to Mussolini's ideas about Pragmatism and using irrational appeals to unify the different groups in society, rather than the usual rational theories put forward by Capitalism and Socialism/Communism. And Nationalism is one of those irrational appeals.

Maybe...
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
http://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rmscheck/GermanyE6.html

But there's many definitions, made up by different people. I generally stick to Mussolini's ideas about Pragmatism and using irrational appeals to unify the different groups in society, rather than the usual rational theories put forward by Capitalism and Socialism/Communism. And Nationalism is one of those irrational appeals.
It's more than that. It's also a form of social Darwinism that goes as far as to say that different races (however a fascist leader defines it) are unfit to control themselves, and in Germany's case, must be actively stamped out. I also believe it stems from Nietzche's ideas. I believe a few other countries tried it, too. Spain was nominally fascist, but I think it died out even before Gen. Franco's death. Argentina tried it once or twice, and it failed. Japan before WWII was definitly fascist. France and Britain came dangerously close, but thankfully, never made it.

The transition, I believe, is happening before our eyes, and should be the biggest security concern in East Asia. If it becomes a liberal democracy (or even a Singapore style semi-democracy), the world will be better off. If not, it may lead to the greatest security situation there since WWII.ok but... What if China does not become Liberal democracy?
What If China becomes China... I mean it does not change politically .. It stays the same.

Would that be a problem?

ok but... What if China does not become Liberal democracy?
What If China becomes China... I mean it does not change.. It stays the same.

Would that be a problem?
Depends. At it's current state, no. It is no real threat to annyone. However, if a more nationalistic leader comes to power, then things may get messy. But I believe a maintainance of the status quo to be unlikely. Don't you agree?

Depends. At it's current state, no. It is no real threat to annyone. However, if a more nationalistic leader comes to power, then things may get messy. But I believe a maintainance of the status quo to be unlikely. Don't you agree?me thinks...

Political Status-Quo... is precisely what all the Chinese governing Party wants...all the Generals.. all the Power brokers..they are all happy with the Status-Quo... The minute they perceive someone who threaten the Political status Quo.. they will get rid of him.

as long as the Chinese economy is doing good... Stability is not at risk in China... as long as the Chinese economy can feed the massive quantities of Chinese peasants...

PS... My sister went to visit China and the wall.. (she brought me some nice souvenirs too) she was under the impression that the average Chinese is happy with the economic progress...

BTW while at the Flea markets... never buy at the first offer.. take you time.. a bit:D

Not surprising to me to be honest. How powerful is an economy based off of banking, the Economist, and diseased meat to begin with?

It's more than that. It's also a form of social Darwinism that goes as far as to say that different races (however a fascist leader defines it) are unfit to control themselves, and in Germany's case, must be actively stamped out. I also believe it stems from Nietzche's ideas. I believe a few other countries tried it, too. Spain was nominally fascist, but I think it died out even before Gen. Franco's death. Argentina tried it once or twice, and it failed. Japan before WWII was definitly fascist. France and Britain came dangerously close, but thankfully, never made it.

First off, big misconception about Nietzsche. He was commited in 1890 because of brain cancer (that's the latest diagnosis, by analising the symtoms reported by the doctors at the time). His sister took over the publication of his work; in fact, he never knew how popular his ideas were getting. His sister became a Nazi simpathiser when they showed up. You do the math on this one.

Second: Hey, what about Portugal? But more importantly Argentina was never fascist; I dunno if they tried.

Not surprising to me to be honest. How powerful is an economy based off of banking, the Economist, and diseased meat to begin with?

It worked fairly well for Victorian England.

Wasn't Greece Fascist for a while?

First off, big misconception about Nietzche. He was commited in 1890 because of brain cancer (that's the latest diagnosis, by analising the symtoms reported by the doctors at the time). His sister took over the publication of his work; in fact, he never knew how popular his ideas were getting. His sister became a Nazi simpathiser when they showed up. You do the math on this one.

Second: Hey, what about Portugal? But more importantly Argentina was never fascist; I dunno if they tried.

Peronism shared some of the trappings of fascism. Peron even described it as a "third way" between communism and capitalism. He was socially quite progressive though, and resisted too much military build up.

A military dictatorship is not fascism. I dunno if Greece was fascist for a while, but they had did have a Mil. Dict.

Aw, hey, it was better when people were talking about the perpetual growth economy. We nearly hit on the capitalist myth, there! The market lie!

Perpetual growth is, of course, impossible in the confines of this rocky orb of ours. Increasing growth usually means increasing consumption, and the market is great for that, hurrah. But this just means destroying the planet in double quick time, and depleting its finite resources, as was being hinted at on, I think, page two of this thread.

But then came the implication that China's growth woudl level out, in the end. And India's. And presumably everyone else's?

How does that make sense, in a global market economy? What happens to low-growth or stability (no growth) in a market economy? Everyone loses confidence in it, because it's not growing, and what chump wants to trust in throwing money at a problem as a solution to it? Stability or low growth turns artificially into recession, depression. So, under the market, we must grow forever!

This means consuming more..every year..every year consuming more than the last year. Absolutely impossible, in the end.

Ah, you say, ah, but Europe, while China is doing this, Europe and America are leading the way in developing new technology! New technology may not need higher consumption, because we can just value new technology sufficiently highly that it accounts for required growth, and confidence never collapses! The market drives invention, right?

Well, no, that's just something that some guy once said, and everyone has been repeating ever since. In truth, the rate of invention is slumping dramatically. We don't innovate, anymore. In fact we're at pre-industrial levels of creativity. All we do these days is to take existing inventions and put clocks in them, or we make them smaller, or we make them faster. These things can't go on forever and continue to increase in value. The market does not work.

Eh, I don't know where I'm going with this, but it's my reaction to the early part of this thread.

Competition doesn't make sense. It's unnatural. Capitalism is a nice idea, unfortunately it is run by humans. [Ooh, deliberate jab at anti-communists!]

Aside!: Not only is China non-communist, it is actively anti-communist, it has NEVER in all history been even remotely close to communistic, nor has it ever tried in any form to become communistic. You can say otherwise until your head falls off, but you will never, ever be right.

Peronism shared some of the trappings of fascism. Peron even described it as a "third way" between communism and capitalism. He was socially quite progressive though, and resisted too much military build up.

Hum, thought you were talking about Pinochet. Gonna look into it.

Perpetual growth is, of course, impossible in the confines of this rocky orb of ours. Increasing growth usually means increasing consumption, and the market is great for that, hurrah. But this just means destroying the planet in double quick time, and depleting its finite resources, as was being hinted at on, I think, page two of this thread.


What about subjective value theory? That allows for perpetual growth. Or positional goods? Their value will continue to increase barring massive depopulation -which, as you apparently assuming that man is planet bound forever - will happen anyway.

Hum, thought you were talking about Pinochet. Gonna look into it.
Pinochet was Chile, not Argentina.

Well, at the moment, given that the idea that the market drives invention is clearly nonsense, it does look as if man will be quite terrestrial for the foreseeable future.

On positional goods, I dunno, it seems to me that this just goes with the idea that, in the competition of market economics, someone has to lose. Whether that's because we all need someone to be working cheaply to keep us living cheaply(-in terms of actual work), or because we've already taken all the finite commodities perhaps doesn't realllly matter.

Does subjective value really allow for perpetual growth? I mean, in the end, in practical terms, is it not just nonsense? I'm pretty drunk right now, but I'm struggling to see how this allows perpetual growth. Even if it does (in which case I may turn out to be all for it, who knows?) I'm not sure that it will apply to our actual situation, or to the issue of China's economic growth in the real world.

I'm pretty drunk right now,

The world is going to hell in a handbasket

The world is going to hell in a handbasket

What the devil are you talking about? The world has always been shit, and I have always been drunk. Nothing's going anywhere!

Well, at the moment, given that the idea that the market drives invention is clearly nonsense, it does look as if man will be quite terrestrial for the foreseeable future.

I don't know about that either. There is a lot of shit to buy now that just didn't exist thirty years ago. I think the perception that there is no innovation comes from the fact that in a lot of mature industries this is the case. And even then, some mature industries like aerospace are incredibly innovative. The aircraft hulls today bear little resemblence to the ones being pushed out even twenty years ago. Likewise with medicine.

Anyway, even if the market doesn't drive continous improvement necessarily, it certainly creates new industries periodically. Andy Grove - one of the founders of Intel - reckons that bio-tech is on the verge of actually breaking out.

But reasonable people could differ about this.

On positional goods, I dunno, it seems to me that this just goes with the idea that, in the competition of market economics, someone has to lose. Whether that's because we all need someone to be working cheaply to keep us living cheaply(-in terms of actual work), or because we've already taken all the finite commodities perhaps doesn't realllly matter.

Well the idea is that every voluntary exchange benefits both parties, so no-one loses. But I agree that this is not always the case. However, for growth purposes, it doesn't really matter. As long as the aggregate is better off at the end of the cycle then there is growth. That's certainly been the case with China. The majority of people there are worse off than they were ten years ago, what with a lot of the social services they were guaranteed being suspended, and the general neglect of the rural poor.

Positional goods can alway increase in value. There is only one top job, there are only so many people that can graduate from the best university, and there are only so many houses at the beach. Obviously, as the population increases, the scarcity premium for them will increase. Therefore, assuming no general downturn in the standard of living, that sector of the marketplace is capable of sustained growth forever. And I would argue that as it is a bona fide increase in the scarcity premium (more people competing for the same good), you can't dismiss the increase in value as inflationary.


Does subjective value really allow for perpetual growth? I mean, in the end, in practical terms, is it not just nonsense? I'm pretty drunk right now, but I'm struggling to see how this allows perpetual growth. Even if it does (in which case I may turn out to be all for it, who knows?) I'm not sure that it will apply to our actual situation, or to the issue of China's economic growth in the real world.

Yah, I think so. Small improvements, like making something smaller - the Ipod nano - or adding OnStar - my car - might not make much practical difference to any particular individual. But in terms of how the market measures these small improvements they might add significant value to the item, and thus that leads to growth.

Look at the sports shoe market. Personally, I buy whatever shoe fits the best, but people will now pay inordinate amounts for brand name sneakers (something unimaginable forty years ago), on the basis of marginal improvements in sneaker technology. (Remember those obnoxious pump up shoes). Athletic wear has grown as a market enormously in the past thirty years - and in a non-inflationary way - even though unit costs for production have probably fallen in real terms. There is no reason that this can't continue across all market segments, and over time. Same thing with the auto market.

And this is why people claim that average real wages have fallen. But it's not like they are living like their granparents either.

ok but... What if China does not become Liberal democracy?
What If China becomes China... I mean it does not change politically .. It stays the same.

Would that be a problem?
I think we're all being too complacent about China; we say "yeah, yeah, master of the world in 20 years tops, etc." but let us not forget that a lot can happen in twenty years, and all it takes is one government hothead pushing the button on those hundreds of missiles aimed at Taiwan for all hell to break loose. Better yet, let's take one liberal nutcase in Taiwan declaring his country officially independent. China can't even be trusted by its neighbors immediately offshore... do you *really* want it in a position of power? God help us if China ever makes it as a global hegemon. You think the US is bad? Ahahaha...

Honestly, I don't really care if China becomes the world's largest economy. Its military capacity and dictatorial government are far more worthy of concern than its economic strength. If its ability to project its power grows beyond that of the United States and its politics don't change accordingly, be prepared for some very unfun times.

So much of that is just so hollow, though. I just can't see it being correct. Wait, no, must not go down this route... I've not enough ...awake-ness left to do it all, hang on, finding what I wanted to address... eh, I don't know... this stuff about innovation, I really don't think there is much to it. I mean, making things a little different, a little smaller, a little faster, it's not acutally changing our situation very much. It's not going to get us off this planet... it is fodder for expanding markets in the likes of the Chinese middle class, but it is not solving the problems it creates... we've still finite resources, and we've no revolutionary innovations on how to get more, how to get more out of what we have, how to off-set the damage done by what we have and what we're taking and will take.

Certainly our new planes now are... bigger than twenty years ago (slower, uglier, no more efficient)... essentially different to the cutting-edge when i was younger and flew behind the Iron Curtain on a Russian turboprop. Certainly we have more choice about how to pump music into our ears, and we can do it faster and..smaller than before. But this isn't exactly replacing the team of workers and the horse with the threshing machine, is it? It's replacing the Walkman with the Ipod, which really isn't helping.

I still use a cassette player, and it still works.. in the industrial revolution, if I kept using ten men and a couple of horses where my neighbour used two men and a machine, I'd be buried. But the market era should be considered a sick beast or a machine low on fuel, something we look desperately to replace before it is too late.

(I'm pretty sure there's a point in yr post there that I didn't address, but I'll have to leave it to someone else or wait until next time to find it, can't see straight enough to deal with such just now.)

Yathura, eh, that sounds too much like something that comes from one who''s not reallysuffered as a victim of the current order. Like someone who didn't step on a land-mine in Angola after wandering too close to a new US-owned oil facility, or someone who doesn't use, "I hope to see your house on CNN!" as a curse to his Balkan neighbour, or didn't lose his bystanding brother to the cause of enduring freedom.

Sure, if China's the bigshot, life might get worse for us. I wouldn't handle it very well. But hey, I wouldn't handle being in a country at the bottom of the US-topped pile, either. Nor would you.

Nobody's going to get to the top in Taiwan while harbouring serious intentions to get-everyone-killed-by-the-PRC, either, that's just scaremongering of the sort that allowed Trotsky et al to murder ever last communist in Russia to protect against the entente spies, and lead to the deaths of tens of millions, or that allowed the US to bomb millions of lives into nothing rather more recently.

Yathura, eh, that sounds too much like something that comes from one who''s not reallysuffered as a victim of the current order. Like someone who didn't step on a land-mine in Angola after wandering too close to a new US-owned oil facility, or someone who doesn't use, "I hope to see your house on CNN!" as a curse to his Balkan neighbour, or didn't lose his bystanding brother to the cause of enduring freedom.

Sure, if China's the bigshot, life might get worse for us. I wouldn't handle it very well. But hey, I wouldn't handle being in a country at the bottom of the US-topped pile, either. Nor would you.

Nobody's going to get to the top in Taiwan while harbouring serious intentions to get-everyone-killed-by-the-PRC, either, that's just scaremongering of the sort that allowed Trotsky et al to murder ever last communist in Russia to protect against the entente spies, and lead to the deaths of tens of millions, or that allowed the US to bomb millions of lives into nothing rather more recently.
I'm not saying the US hasn't done some terrible, inexcusable things. I know it has. I don't think I'd be directly impacted either way, regardless of which superpower it comes down to, but on a global scale, weighing the good with the bad, the screw-ups like Vietnam and Iraq with the more modest but more numerous successes, not to mention the distinct lack of world wars in the last 50+ years, I can't say that US hegemony is the worst thing that the world could be subjected to. If I have to choose the lesser of two evils, which seems to be what it always comes down to, US or China? I'll pick the one that doesn't oppress its own people.

As for Taiwan, the status quo can't go on forever. I'm not saying it will end in bloodshed (I don't think it will, really) but I'm trying to point out that we're talking about a country that has some serious issues with its immediate neighbours to sort out and that becoming a big worldwide military player before making nice with the locals wouldn't be a good thing for anyone, especially if the US has to play knight in shining armor to Taiwan or Japan and pit itself against an equal world player. Every time you have two or more superpowers, you're rolling the dice more and more frequently for a world war, that's basic political theory. Based on that alone, I'd rather that either a) China goes the way of Europe, becoming an economic but not militaristic power, leaving the global police work to the US, or b) the US loses a good deal of sway as China rises, thus making for only one world power. Option a is my particular preference, but really, as long as we stick with someone as a hegemon, as has worked relatively well for the past half century, I'm happy.
Regardless, trying to project predictions for China's future twenty years from now is divination at best.

Eh, fifty years without a world war is not big woop. It'd be the same way if China was on top. This last half century has been an even worse peace than the so-called Pax Britannia!

So much of that is just so hollow, though. I just can't see it being correct. Wait, no, must not go down this route... I've not enough ...awake-ness left to do it all, hang on, finding what I wanted to address... eh, I don't know... this stuff about innovation, I really don't think there is much to it. I mean, making things a little different, a little smaller, a little faster, it's not acutally changing our situation very much. It's not going to get us off this planet... it is fodder for expanding markets in the likes of the Chinese middle class, but it is not solving the problems it creates... we've still finite resources, and we've no revolutionary innovations on how to get more, how to get more out of what we have, how to off-set the damage done by what we have and what we're taking and will take.

Certainly our new planes now are... bigger than twenty years ago (slower, uglier, no more efficient)... essentially different to the cutting-edge when i was younger and flew behind the Iron Curtain on a Russian turboprop. Certainly we have more choice about how to pump music into our ears, and we can do it faster and..smaller than before. But this isn't exactly replacing the team of workers and the horse with the threshing machine, is it? It's replacing the Walkman with the Ipod, which really isn't helping.

I still use a cassette player, and it still works.. in the industrial revolution, if I kept using ten men and a couple of horses where my neighbour used two men and a machine, I'd be buried. But the market era should be considered a sick beast or a machine low on fuel, something we look desperately to replace before it is too late.

(I'm pretty sure there's a point in yr post there that I didn't address, but I'll have to leave it to someone else or wait until next time to find it, can't see straight enough to deal with such just now.)

It's just that you are valuing things objectively. In objective terms a walkman is not much better than an IPod. Subjectively, which is how a market views it, the value difference is huge. Like timex watches and rolex: they both just tell the time. Or natural diamonds or "artificial" ones. (I can't believe that people still dig round in the dirt for them, but there you go).

Your point about labor force reduction is well taken, but I assume that is because of the vast pool of third world labor available, there is no incentive increase automation. It's also politically inexpedient.

New energy resources likewise. Oil is still to cheap to drive innovation. Wait until it is $300 a barrel. Even then, society is far more energy efficient that the 60s.

I am not saying that growth sustainably increase, just that because of the way it is measured, it can.

(Oh yah, planes look the same, but that's just because aero-dynamics is well understood and has been for a long time. Structurally they are very different. New materials, much lighter construction &c. The airbus 380 even uses a brand new friction welding system for wing sections. They are a lot more efficient too).

I still struggle to see how this is going to help us. We're making existing things better, but we're not really innovating. I just want to destroy the myth that capitalism/the free market in and of itself is the driving force behind innovation and comfort.

We need to consume less if we're not going to really innovate more. But the way things are going, with competition between China, India, the US, Europe, and whomever else, all disinterestedly within that unhelpful system, it's not going to happen. And it doesn't matter who wins (I don't think that anyone winning is a good thing in any event, but that's beside the point).

I really have to go to bed. Or at least find water. [E-waves]

Eh, fifty years without a world war is not big woop. It'd be the same way if China was on top. This last half century has been an even worse peace than the so-called Pax Britannia!
Tell that to people who lived through WWI-WWII. I'm betting they would disagree about relative peace not being a big deal. Sure, China could probably keep the peace, too, but I'm betting it won't be as pleasant unless its human rights record shapes up.

Wait, that's something completely different from the context in which my comments were made.

(Yeah, my great grandfather was at the Somme, my granddad got shot in WWII, these things are not beyond my consideration.)

I gave that in response to your notion that the world is inherently better off under a US super power, and specifically that major conflict is done away with. Whether or not China's domination would be a little bit worse for the world has nothing to do with the world war item.

Human rights are a whole other issue, and one in which I am not remotely interested. Rights are a nonsense about which I do not care at all, just part of the current dominion.

Have to go, now. Thought I should say, so it doesn't just look as if I dropped out at random.

Wait, that's something completely different from the context in which my comments were made.

(Yeah, my great grandfather was at the Somme, my granddad got shot in WWII, these things are not beyond my consideration.)

I gave that in response to your notion that the world is inherently better off under a US super power, and specifically that major conflict is done away with. Whether or not China's domination would be a little bit worse for the world has nothing to do with the world war item.

Human rights are a whole other issue, and one in which I am not remotely interested. Rights are a nonsense about which I do not care at all, just part of the current dominion.

Have to go, now. Thought I should say, so it doesn't just look as if I dropped out at random.

Sorry, I would have made it another post if I'd seen your response before I edited :) But I do think the world is better off with a superpower with better human rights records than China, yes, whether that be the US or a reformed China. An unreformed China as a superpower would suck.

Human rights is not a whole other issue, it is the *only* issue. If China had the human rights of any western European country, I would be cheering it along in its progress, and to heck with any other considerations.

Sorry, I would have made it another post if I'd seen your response before I edited :) But I do think the world is better off with a superpower with better human rights records than China, yes, whether that be the US or a reformed China. An unreformed China as a superpower would suck.

Human rights is not a whole other issue, it is the *only* issue. If China had the human rights of any western European country, I would be cheering it along in its progress, and to heck with any other considerations.
Hmm, actually, I should restate this to say that I would be cheering it along in the direction of becoming the primary global hegemon. As I stated before, I'd rather have one global superpower than two competing ones; that just makes things messy, so let's not go there.

I still struggle to see how this is going to help us. We're making existing things better, but we're not really innovating. I just want to destroy the myth that capitalism/the free market in and of itself is the driving force behind innovation and comfort.

We need to consume less if we're not going to really innovate more. But the way things are going, with competition between China, India, the US, Europe, and whomever else, all disinterestedly within that unhelpful system, it's not going to happen. And it doesn't matter who wins (I don't think that anyone winning is a good thing in any event, but that's beside the point).

I really have to go to bed. Or at least find water. [E-waves]

Well, to be fair, capitalism is not the only system that produces innovation. Any societal system can innovate in response to pressure. Even feudalism, which almost enshrined stasis as holy writ threw up innovation now and again.

I think that the real question is whether or not capitalism/free markets can produce the type of revolutionary changes that will free society from the problems of a shrinking resource base. But there is no reason to suppose that it will be less sucessful than any other system at this. There just isn't any price pressure driving this type of thing extensively at the moment. Or at least that seems to be the case.

And if this problem is insurmountable, you have to give free markets one thing, they are ruthlessly efficient at allocating goods. So if we have to all accept less in terms of the resource pie, the markets will see to it accordingly. They just aren't seemingly very fair, because they don't measure what we claim we value. They only measure how we act.

Second: Hey, what about Portugal? But more importantly Argentina was never fascist; I dunno if they tried.
Sure they did. Juan Peron was fascinated with fascism.

Ok, lets get one thing straight. The thing I said about driving a car too hard was...get this... wait for it... A METAPHOR. Wow, now that we cleared that up I think things will go a little more smoothly. Communist governments tend to start in countries with great civil unrest, so when they start building the nation from what ever war they went through to acheive victory, they usually push for reconstruction. Sometimes they do this a little too hard, but so does EVERY nation. The building of the Trans-Continental Railroad cost a lot of immigrant lives for a lot less of an acheivement. The Soviets, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, all of these countries went through a tough period of time right when they started. But so did the United States, Mexico, and a lot of other western nations. And by the way, having one political party is better than having two puppet parties that are basically the same thing. The whole election system is complete bullshit. At least when the Chinese do something, they do things without having to make up a story about "WMDs" or Terrorists. They just roll in and take a place... the way things are supposed to be handled. Thinking I actually meant one could kill 40 million people with a car...:headbang: man, how do some people manage to breath?


lol the car thing was just to annoy u . . .kind fun 2
but a bit more seriously lets start with one point . . .im actually in favour of comunism r. . .or at least with its ideals and im canadian so I think that Bush's invasion of iraq was extremely stupid and that the USA's political situation is kinda bad. but id also say that you shouldn't just write off 40 million people no matter who kills them or for what purpose nothing is worth 40 million lives

lol the car thing was just to annoy u . . .kind fun 2
but a bit more seriously lets start with one point . . .im actually in favour of comunism r. . .or at least with its ideals and im canadian so I think that Bush's invasion of iraq was extremely stupid and that the USA's political situation is kinda bad. but id also say that you shouldn't just write off 40 million people no matter who kills them or for what purpose nothing is worth 40 million lives

Here's another example of people not wanting to look at life in terms that aren't pulled right out of a fairy tale. Ok, I'm tired of people saying "I like the IDEA of Communism, but not what actually happened, because it's corrupt and boo hoo hooo!" Look, ALL GOVERNMENTS WILL BE CORRUPT TO AN EXTENT. I would personally like have a corrupt government with at least SOME devotion to social welfare, rather than looking at the entire country like it should be ruled like a buisness. Basically, if you're too afraid of what people might think to say that you support ACTUAL Communism, then guess what... you aren't a Communist. Because talking like you support something but then being too afraid to carry through with it in the public eye is exactly what the United States does.