NationStates Jolt Archive

The Chinese economy, since they embraced "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" has undoubtedly boomed. Over the past decades it has risen as an economic giant and is now claimed to be the superpower of the future.

At the cost of the environment.

http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/world/asia/14briefs-extinctdolphin.html

All they've really done is joined the club when it comes to raping the environment.Nothing new.
And they probably will end up being the new superpower.Until oil runs out.Then we're all fucked.

All they've really done is joined the club when it comes to raping the environment.Nothing new.
And they probably will end up being the new superpower.Until oil runs out.Then we're all fucked.

Yeah i agree, like we did not extoll the same cost on the enviroment to get where we are?

Right now the need to escape poverty outweighs the need to preserve the environment. It's too expensive to industrialize a nation while sticking to strict pollution controls. They figure they'll be able to reverse the damage after the nation becomes rich, much like western nations have done in the past.

Right now the need to escape poverty outweighs the need to preserve the environment. It's too expensive to industrialize a nation while sticking to strict pollution controls. They figure they'll be able to reverse the damage after the nation becomes rich, much like western nations have done in the past.

Actually,I disagree.I think global warming comes first,with the environment and such.Mainly because the repercussions of this problem are a hell of a lot more severe.Ice caps melting,species becoming extinct,the lot.Of course,poverty is a dire problem, but I think global warming takes precedence.

Actually,I disagree.I think global warming comes first,with the environment and such.Mainly because the repercussions of this problem are a hell of a lot more severe.Ice caps melting,species becoming extinct,the lot.Of course,poverty is a dire problem, but I think global warming takes precedence.

Problem is that poor, starving, unemployed people don't give a sh*t about the environment, much less the future of it. When you can't feed yourself, nothing else matters.

That's the price to economic supremacy.

If we want to really save our environment, maybe most of us should become monks or priests and live a monastic life. :D
Otherwise, we automatically join those 'environmental destroyers' to rape the environment.

That's the price to economic supremacy.

If we want to really save our environment, maybe most of us should become monks or priests and live a monastic life. :D
Otherwise, we automatically join those 'environmental destroyers' to rape the environment.

That's not entirely true, there's plenty of eco-friendly stuff out there right now we could adopt and not have to worry so much. It's raping the environment when easily preventable problems cause large amounts of harm.

Right now the need to escape poverty outweighs the need to preserve the environment. It's too expensive to industrialize a nation while sticking to strict pollution controls.

assuming this is true (which it isn't), it ignores the enormous cost associated with environmental destruction, as well as the general principle that said destruction is morally wrong. but just sticking to the lesser question of economics, destroying the environment costs more than not doing so in essentially any terms. and even worse, the benefits of destruction are concentrated in the hands of the already rich and privileged, while the costs are shoved on the already impoverished and disempowered. fuck that.

Who cares about pollution? If a cataclysm is brought on as a result, I am sure God will save those who are closest to him and humanity will go on, in a purer and more blessed form. A great flood will weed out the sinners and only leave the true believers.

Right now the need to escape poverty outweighs the need to preserve the environment. It's too expensive to industrialize a nation while sticking to strict pollution controls. They figure they'll be able to reverse the damage after the nation becomes rich, much like western nations have done in the past.

The problem is, they really aren't escaping poverty all too well. Their economy is so badly imbalanced that they've got massive growth in the bottom and top of the economy with the middle more or less being squeezed on both sides; they're not creating the kind of widespread income growth or a middle class that is necessary to support the economy once it shifts from extensive to intensive growth.

In other words, China's growth is just increasing production without corresponding gains in productivity; they're cranking out more steel by building more factories, but productivity is lagging. And, as an economy matures, that extensive growth becomes harder and harder to support; exponential production is eventually unsustainable because of the scale involved. In fact, that's the exact same thing that happened to the USSR's economy; if China doesn't diversify itself from that kind of growth, it will suffer similar stagnation and decline.

China is incapable of having the kind of productivity and technological gains necessary to drive its economic growth once it shifts from the extensive to the intensive phase. If it doesn't change, it will stagnate and fall behind with soaring unemployment and rising poverty as well as the environmental devastation of too much extensive growth.

The problem is, they really aren't escaping poverty all too well. Their economy is so badly imbalanced that they've got massive growth in the bottom and top of the economy with the middle more or less being squeezed on both sides; they're not creating the kind of widespread income growth or a middle class that is necessary to support the economy once it shifts from extensive to intensive growth.

In other words, China's growth is just increasing production without corresponding gains in productivity; they're cranking out more steel by building more factories, but productivity is lagging. And, as an economy matures, that extensive growth becomes harder and harder to support; exponential production is eventually unsustainable because of the scale involved. In fact, that's the exact same thing that happened to the USSR's economy; if China doesn't diversify itself from that kind of growth, it will suffer similar stagnation and decline.

China is incapable of having the kind of productivity and technological gains necessary to drive its economic growth once it shifts from the extensive to the intensive phase. If it doesn't change, it will stagnate and fall behind with soaring unemployment and rising poverty as well as the environmental devastation of too much extensive growth.

I understand this problem and so do most of the politicians. However, this kind of explosive growth is necessary right now because of all the migration of people from rural to urban areas. The demand for jobs is very high and the number of jobs available is too low, causing high unemployment. In order to create more jobs for the largely uneducated work force, the government encourages the creation of new plants and factories. Currently, the average retirement ages is 50 years of age or below. This is because employers must make room for new and younger workers entering the workforce or face the rise of slums in big cities. The current plan certainly won't work long term, but it is the first step to reducing poverty due to unemployment.

Things will change as the older generations retire and make way for a smaller and more skilled workforce.

I understand this problem and so do most of the politicians. However, this kind of explosive growth is necessary right now because of all the migration of people from rural to urban areas. The demand for jobs is very high and the number of jobs available is too low, causing high unemployment. In order to create more jobs for the largely uneducated work force, the government encourages the creation of new plants and factories. Currently, the average retirement ages is 50 years of age or below. This is because employers must make room for new and younger workers entering the workforce or face the rise of slums in big cities. The current plan certainly won't work long term, but it is the first step to reducing poverty due to unemployment.

Yes, that's true. Of course, a lot of that unemployment is caused by the elimination of more and more state-owned enterprises, which usually had an excess of employees and so are dampening employment growth; once the economy's more open, job growth will likely accelerate. However, now is the critical time for their economy; if they make key reforms, they will be able to maintain growth and continue to grow once their economy has moved to intensive growth. If not, they will slow and eventually decline.

China's wisest decision so far has been its investment drive in rural infrastructure, education/health services, and economic growth; tackling the imbalance between urban and rural will expand the domestic market, stimulate job growth, and likely boost agricultural productivity. It's an ambitious plan, but also a very good idea because a balanced economy can manage economic shocks better and it will have a less severe effect overall. I also read recently that the Chinese government is shifting its focus from rate of growth to quality and productivity; that's an encouraging sign that will hopefully signify a government effort to encourage intensive growth in the economy. That will help correct imbalances and drive domestic consumption.

Things will change as the older generations retire and make way for a smaller and more skilled workforce.

True; the rising educational level of newer generations, especially in fields like business and economics, will be highly beneficial to both the economy and the central banking apparatus. However, China also has to address the demographic problems of that transition to prevent problems; if they can drive productivity growth and move away from unskilled labor, they will be able to manage it pretty well.

It's a balancing act, but hopefully the leadership in the state and economy will be capable of managing the challenges while still achieving the kind of growth necessary to reduce poverty, raise living standards and lower unemployment.

A dead dolphin for a higher standard of living? Looks like its time to go to sea-world

Yes, that's true. Of course, a lot of that unemployment is caused by the elimination of more and more state-owned enterprises, which usually had an excess of employees and so are dampening employment growth; once the economy's more open, job growth will likely accelerate. However, now is the critical time for their economy; if they make key reforms, they will be able to maintain growth and continue to grow once their economy has moved to intensive growth. If not, they will slow and eventually decline.

China's wisest decision so far has been its investment drive in rural infrastructure, education/health services, and economic growth; tackling the imbalance between urban and rural will expand the domestic market, stimulate job growth, and likely boost agricultural productivity. It's an ambitious plan, but also a very good idea because a balanced economy can manage economic shocks better and it will have a less severe effect overall. I also read recently that the Chinese government is shifting its focus from rate of growth to quality and productivity; that's an encouraging sign that will hopefully signify a government effort to encourage intensive growth in the economy. That will help correct imbalances and drive domestic consumption.



True; the rising educational level of newer generations, especially in fields like business and economics, will be highly beneficial to both the economy and the central banking apparatus. However, China also has to address the demographic problems of that transition to prevent problems; if they can drive productivity growth and move away from unskilled labor, they will be able to manage it pretty well.

It's a balancing act, but hopefully the leadership in the state and economy will be capable of managing the challenges while still achieving the kind of growth necessary to reduce poverty, raise living standards and lower unemployment.

I agree with you. One of the main problems that I see is that because there is such a small middle class, the market for products designed for the middle class is too small. The products that do well are those that are cheap to produce, thus easy to afford, and those that are super high quality, which only the wealthy can afford. Thus, it is sometimes difficult to shift from low tech, low quality production to higher quality, more sophisticated production. The distribution of wealth is a problem that is not easily rectified. Another problem I see is the rampant corruption that plagues government agencies and corporations alike. Where money was supposed to go towards helping the poor, the money is ending up in offshore accounts of wealthy politicians. Where profits could have gone back into the economy to improve productivity, the money has been squandered by wealthy executives with massive villas. Sad. :(

Yeah i agree, like we did not extoll the same cost on the enviroment to get where we are?

Well, we didn't. But then again we weren't industrializing the lives of 1 billion people.