NationStates Jolt Archive

The new ranking came out this week.

http://www.imd.ch/research/publications/wcy/announcing.cfm

The methodology and an FAQ can be found there as well.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2007/gb20070511_173907.htm?campaign_id=rss_eu
The US continually does so well in the IMD survey thanks to several factors. It ranks No. 1 in the world for its domestic economy, international investment, financial strength, and technology infrastructure. It also comes out on top for "scientific infrastructure," which IMD defines as a blend of higher education, patent protection, R&D investment, and other enablers of innovation.

But in this year's study, the US skidded five positions in its ranking for "government efficiency," a metric devised from factors such as fiscal soundness, trade freedom, and bureaucracy. Survey respondents marked the US down in areas such as its legal and regulatory framework, independence of the public service from political interference, and even the behavior of customs authorities. Chile, Estonia, and even China all scored better, in aggregate.
Interesting...

In short, same as usual. The US is doing well, but a bunch of others are catching up. And American politicians either don't react or react the wrong way.

What do you think the world will be like when the US is being surpassed by China as the biggest economy, which is forecasted to happen within the next few decades?

What do you think the world will be like when the US is being surpassed by China as the biggest economy, which is forecasted to happen within the next few decades?
Better.

Heck, Australia dropping from 6th to 12th.
Good job you're doing there Johnny!

B*llsh*t - HK kicks Singapore's ass

Better.

Hardly.

All you'd have is China messing up the world instead of the US.

Hardly.

All you'd have is China messing up the world instead of the US.
With the collapse of US dominance, there will be enough checks on any nation to effectively end unilateralism.

With the collapse of US dominance, there will be enough checks on any nation to effectively end unilateralism.

If you think the US 'dominance' is bad, then what makes you think China's be any better, espically since they have 1 billion people?

Canada is losing to Sweden?!?!?! Jesus Hardcore Christ. Good job Harper. The economy is supposed to be the thing your party is 1337 at, but we've lost 3 positions with you.



I think Canada should spend more on research and development. Allot more.

If you think the US 'dominance' is bad, then what makes you think China's be any better, espically since they have 1 billion people?
What part about an end to unilateralism did you not understand?

Canada is losing to Sweden?!?!?! Jesus Hardcore Christ. Good job Harper. The economy is supposed to be the thing your party is 1337 at, but we've lost 3 positions with you.



I think Canada should spend more on research and development. Allot more.
Keep in mind, this is economics we're talking about. Harper's only been in office a few years. This could well be the result of a previous administration's (government's? I forget what terminology ya'll use up there) actions and polices.
I agree, though, that Canada could spend some more on research. We all could.

With the collapse of US dominance, there will be enough checks on any nation to effectively end unilateralism.

Ah, so instead of one country messing up the world(and fixing some off those mistakes), you'll have alot of countries messing up the world...

Thats so much better:rolleyes:

Leave the US alone, we're the only thing keeping this whole planet from spiraling out of control.

Ah, so instead of one country messing up the world(and fixing some off those mistakes), you'll have alot of countries messing up the world...

Thats so much better:rolleyes:

Leave the US alone, we're the only thing keeping this whole planet from spiraling out of control.
No. In fact, our policies are one of the primary reasons it's in the shape that it is.

India's going to eventually overtake China. They're not as reckless, are making great strides in infrastructure and education, and their free, multiparty democracy is a very powerful tool for economic development, far more than the kleptocratic dictatorship that is in place at most levels of the Chinese government. In fact, most of China's growth is pretty much a sham these days, nothing but a wash of debt and asset bubbles that make the US housing situation look tame in comparison. They're selling goods to produce more of them, and the growth is simply feeding on itself rather than an actual consumer market. It's simply not sustainable growth, at least not a good chunk of it.

If and when that bubble bursts, they will be hit hard. India's growth is far more balanced and far more sustainable, and isn't as overinvested as the Chinese by a long stretch. In fact, they're probably fairly underinvested in most major sectors outside of IT and related fields.

Leave the US alone, we're the only thing keeping this whole planet from spiraling out of control.

I'm pretty sure the international community's fondness for preemptive wars against non-existent objects will wear off rather soon.

India's going to eventually overtake China. They're not as reckless, are making great strides in infrastructure and education, and their free, multiparty democracy is a very powerful tool for economic development, far more than the kleptocratic dictatorship that is in place at most levels of the Chinese government.

That is, of course, if China doesn't democratize. That's the only way they will ever have sustainable economic growth.
Qualify that. In what way does democracy necessarily lead to a better economy? It seems to me that better economies create more stable democracies, not the other way around.

Yay, Italy has gone up 6 ranks since we got rid of Berlusconi.

DIE SILVIO DIE! :)

Ah, so instead of one country messing up the world(and fixing some off those mistakes), you'll have alot of countries messing up the world...


Viola. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory)

No. In fact, our policies are one of the primary reasons it's in the shape that it is.

I love how people can put up US policies as one of the prmary reasons the worlds in the shape it is:rolleyes:

The world is messed up cause thats how it always has been, and how it will always be. The US, even though it has its faults, does keep somewhat of a leash on a world that would be far more messed up without our intervention.

The rest of the world needs to grow the fuck up, take responsibility for themselves, and realize they messed up the world just as much, if not more, than the US did.

Viola

It think you mean "voila". (voo-ah-LAH)

It think you mean "voila". (voo-ah-LAH)
not necessarily. He could be a strings freak.

I love how people can put up US policies as one of the prmary reasons the worlds in the shape it is:rolleyes:

The world is messed up cause thats how it always has been, and how it will always be. The US, even though it has its faults, does keep somewhat of a leash on a world that would be far more messed up without our intervention.

The rest of the world needs to grow the fuck up, take responsibility for themselves, and realize they messed up the world just as much, if not more, than the US did.
I don't know, I don't recall Canada or France perpetuating the Cold War, initiating illegal regime changes all over the world, standing in the way of several UN initiatives including the World Court and the Declaration of Human Rights, launching preemptive strikes on small nearly seemingly defenseless countries for blatantly selfish economic and strategic self-interest or creating an atmosphere of hatred for themselves all over the world.

I love how people can put up US policies as one of the prmary reasons the worlds in the shape it is:rolleyes:

The world is messed up cause thats how it always has been, and how it will always be. The US, even though it has its faults, does keep somewhat of a leash on a world that would be far more messed up without our intervention.

Do you realise that, if you want to claim all the merit for the things that are going fine, you'll have to take the blame for the things that are snafu also.


The rest of the world needs to grow the fuck up, take responsibility for themselves, and realize they messed up the world just as much, if not more, than the US did.

Also, do you realise that "taking responsibility for themselves" means kicking US dominance out from many countries... like Venezuela is doing, for example.
;)

Multipolar world/multilateralism is better than US monopoly.

It think you mean "voila". (voo-ah-LAH)

Clearly you've never used a Viola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viola) as a deterrent - played badly it can kill from across continents

...and realize they messed up the world just as much, if not more, than the US did.

"Stop doing that."
"Why?"
"It's stupid."
"Yeah, but so was ________!"
"..."

I'd expect to hear that from kindergartners in a sandbox.


The rest of the world needs to grow the fuck up...

:rolleyes:

Qualify that. In what way does democracy necessarily lead to a better economy? It seems to me that better economies create more stable democracies, not the other way around.

Indian democracy was essential for opening up their economy in the late 1980's, which stimulated the boom they have today, and without a free society they would not be able to have the kind of educational institutions they currently possess, which would make much of their recent economic growth impossible. Science and technology, upon which India relies for much of its growth, require a free society to thrive. Otherwise, you're going to have the entire process compromised by state restriction and interference.

That's why Chinese researchers produce little research of merit in their home country, with most of it coming from Chinese emigrants or researchers working in places like the US or EU. The scientific communities in totalitarian nations are dominated by government bureaucrats that stifle knowledge and drive them to produce propaganda worthy results, with many times those results being completely and utterly false or badly distorted.

The world economy is becoming more and more knowledge-based, and in order to have a knowledge-based economy you have to have a free society.

It think you mean "voila". (voo-ah-LAH)

:D Heh, got me.

I don't know, I don't recall Canada or France perpetuating the Cold War, initiating illegal regime changes all over the world, standing in the way of several UN initiatives including the World Court and the Declaration of Human Rights, launching preemptive strikes on small nearly seemingly defenseless countries for blatantly selfish economic and strategic self-interest or creating an atmosphere of hatred for themselves all over the world.

As members of NATO, they tacitly approved everything the US did during the Cold War. It was either that or be nonaligned, which meant there wasn't a thing you could really do if and when the Soviet Union decided to launch its own preemptive strikes for blatantly selfish economic and strategic self interest, initate illegal regime changes, totally disregard human rights and terrorize people in to not hating them by force.

The only reason people hate the US is because the Soviet Union lost the cold war. If the USSR had won, people would hate them (if they were still allowed to do so anymore...chances are, the Soviets would just imprison dissidents and/or kill them).

Clearly you've never used a Viola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viola) as a deterrent - played badly it can kill from across continents

I prefer the Cello, but now the best Cello killer is dead (Mstislav Rostropovic'), we'll have to resort to the Apocalyptica as WMD.

I don't know, I don't recall Canada or France perpetuating the Cold War, initiating illegal regime changes all over the world, standing in the way of several UN initiatives including the World Court and the Declaration of Human Rights, launching preemptive strikes on small nearly seemingly defenseless countries for blatantly selfish economic and strategic self-interest or creating an atmosphere of hatred for themselves all over the world.
However whatever evils you can throw against the US re: it's foreign policy, it'll pale in comparison to what a dominant, powerful China would do/is doing.

However whatever evils you can throw against the US re: it's foreign policy, it'll pale in comparison to what a dominant, powerful China would do/is doing.
Hence, why I hope for an end to unilateralism. I'm not arguing for a dominant China.
As members of NATO, they tacitly approved everything the US did during the Cold War. It was either that or be nonaligned, which meant there wasn't a thing you could really do if and when the Soviet Union decided to launch its own preemptive strikes for blatantly selfish economic and strategic self interest, initate illegal regime changes, totally disregard human rights and terrorize people in to not hating them by force.
Anyone who ever considered the Soviets a serious threat after the death of Stalin was an idiot, true.
The only reason people hate the US is because the Soviet Union lost the cold war. If the USSR had won, people would hate them (if they were still allowed to do so anymore...chances are, the Soviets would just imprison dissidents and/or kill them).
No doubt, but then, we're supposed to be a democracy. No, not just a democracy, The Democracy. Shouldn't more be expected of us than from a communist dictatorship?

I don't know, I don't recall Canada or France perpetuating the Cold War, initiating illegal regime changes all over the world, standing in the way of several UN initiatives including the World Court and the Declaration of Human Rights, launching preemptive strikes on small nearly seemingly defenseless countries for blatantly selfish economic and strategic self-interest or creating an atmosphere of hatred for themselves all over the world.

We didn't perpetuate the Cold War alone, the Soviets had a hand in that too. And would you rather we had let the world become full of Stalinist Totalitarian states?

When it comes to regime change, we just replaced one dictator with one who we could control.

And fuck the UN, stuck up snobbish fools can't actually get anything done anyway.

The US didn't launch that attack, the Republicans did. The rest of us just couldn't do anything about it;)

As for doing things for blatantly selfish economic and strategic self-interest, every country does that. We just do it best.

The Atmosphere of hatred comes with being the best. period. Everyone envies the US, and thats the real reason they dislike us. European pricks.

The US is a dying elephant and China is acting accordingly.And would you rather we had let the world become full of Stalinist Totalitarian states?
come now, the US created and bolstered many fascist states in its own sphere of influence. Everyone envies the US, and thats the real reason they dislike us. and then there are the people who had been oppressed by these US-imposed fascist dictatorships for a number of decades. They have some very good reasons to dislike the US.The US didn't launch that attack, the Republicans did. The rest of us just couldn't do anything about it;)
Russia didn't aim nukes at the US, the CP, USSR did. And yet the US aimed their nukes at Russia:rolleyes:

We didn't perpetuate the Cold War alone, the Soviets had a hand in that too. And would you rather we had let the world become full of Stalinist Totalitarian states?
That is exactly what I said.
And fuck the UN, stuck up snobbish fools can't actually get anything done anyway.
Which has nothing to do with us constantly getting in their way.
The US didn't launch that attack, the Republicans did. The rest of us just couldn't do anything about it;)
The Democrats launched one of their own.
As for doing things for blatantly selfish economic and strategic self-interest, every country does that. We just do it best.
That may be true, but cynicism won't accomplish anything but more of the same. It may sound corny, but you have to believe the world can change for it to actually change.
The Atmosphere of hatred comes with being the best. period. Everyone envies the US, and thats the real reason they dislike us. European pricks.
Europe is the least of our concerns. I'm referring more to the third world. If I was starving, I'd envy the glutton as well.

Anyone who ever considered the Soviets a serious threat after the death of Stalin was an idiot, true.

The Soviets were a serious threat until that idiot Brezhnev started to impose neo-Stalinism and revert the reforms of Khrushchev. There were reasons why their economy grew at 7% per year in the 50's and 5-6% in the 60's, and it wasn't because they were following Stalinist economic policies.

I mean, the Soviets went from having a serious chance of overtaking the US to total economic collapse...they screwed up bad.

What do you think the world will be like when the US is being surpassed by China as the biggest economy, which is forecasted to happen within the next few decades?

It won't last long. When oil runs out, the Chinese economy will crash into a wall like a jet fighter into the ground.

It won't last long. When oil runs out, the Chinese economy will crash into a wall like a jet fighter into the ground.

And ours won't?

The US is a dying elephant and China is acting accordingly.

...i wish you people would think before you spoke. regardless of weather you want to admit it or not. if america fell. so would the world. you would all starve to death and all of your money would be worthless. just like in the 30's. except it will be alot worse. sure china's economy may be growing. thats fine and dandy. it is expected to POSSIBLY surpass american economy in about 12 -20 years. however in 14-25 years they are expected to have a MASSIVE enviromental collapse because of all the pollution they are putting into their air. and when you cant feed your people because they cant grow food. they die...economy dies.... war breaks out...good bye eurasia. who will be the savior then? the "evil america" who has ALWAYS saved the worlds ass and has always been criticised for it later. like in ww2 when we nuked japan. and killed around 350k people...good im glad we did. im glad 350k japanese died. thats alot better than the 1MILLION JAPANESE AND 1MILLION AMERICANS that were predicted to have died if we had invaded. so anyone who wants to talk crap about america must prefer saying "heil hitler" everytime they answer the telephone...assuming they arent dead because they didnt have blonde/light brown hair and green/blue eyes...and where white...i guess all you america haters out there like that.. and comunism...and monarchy under britain....and all the blacks for the most part that are now functional parts of society...would still be banging on logs and eating each other today. you should thank god for america. not sit around and bash it because your country is full of a bunch of cowards who belive NOTHING is worth fighting for.

The Soviets were a serious threat until that idiot Brezhnev started to impose neo-Stalinism Anyone who would call Old Eyebrows a neo-Stalinist obviously did not live in Brezhnev-era Russia:rolleyes:
*EDIT*
*looks at the post above*
Yes, the US owes everyone so much money that there'll be quite a crisis when it's economy finally crashes. Nothing to brag about.
And your little bit of nuke apologia fails to account for the imminent Russian-negotiated truce with Japan and the mindless second nuke:rolleyes:
But what do you expect from the White Man?:p

The US is a dying elephant and China is acting accordingly.come now, the US created and bolstered many fascist states in its own sphere of influence. and then there are the people who had been oppressed by these US-imposed fascist dictatorships for a number of decades. They have some very good reasons to dislike the US.Russia didn't aim nukes at the US, the CP, USSR did. And yet the US aimed their nukes at Russia:rolleyes:

I'm sure they said the same about Rome - history will decide

And ours won't?

Not as badly. When your economy grows uncontrollably, then runs out of fuel, it hurts. A lot.

which meant there wasn't a thing you could really do if and when the Soviet Union decided to launch its own preemptive strikes for blatantly selfish economic and strategic self interest, initate illegal regime changes, totally disregard human rights and terrorize people in to not hating them by force.

Only the US/NATO wasn't exactly in a position to break the Soviet stranglehold over Eastern Europe.

Indeed, a great degree of US foreign intervention during the Cold War was in places where Soviet influence was minimal or simply imagined... like virtually all of Latin America.

And when the superpowers did face off more or less directly, the US clients tended to be at least as bad, if not worse, than those of the Soviet Union.

That is exactly what I said.

Which has nothing to do with us constantly getting in their way.

The Democrats launched one of their own.

That may be true, but cynicism won't accomplish anything but more of the same. It may sound corny, but you have to believe the world can change for it to actually change.

Europe is the least of our concerns. I'm referring more to the third world. If I was starving, I'd envy the glutton as well.

You can believe the world will change all you want, and alot have. Unfortunately, it won't. You can't just close your eyes, click your heels together, and hope something will change.

And If I was starving, i'd spend less time sitting there envying the glutton, and more time trying to get something to eat:D

As much faults as the US has, can you imagine how much more fucked the world would have been without us? I guess I'm just tired of everyone saying 'BLAME THE US'!!! We hardly fucked up the world on our own, it was going to be fucked up anyway, and we made it less fucked up for our own then it could have been.

Is that so wrong?

Anyone who would call Old Eyebrows a neo-Stalinist obviously did not live in Brezhnev-era Russia:rolleyes:
*EDIT*
*looks at the post above*
Yes, the US owes everyone so much money that there'll be quite a crisis when it's economy finally crashes. Nothing to brag about.

lol. we dont ow anyone anything. we let off all of europe of their debts to us in ww2 so you guys can just suck a...what do you guys call moldy biscuits??....scones thats it. go suck a scone

btw during the cold war ussr was russia and russia didnt exist. so i dont understand how we aimed at a country that didnt exist.

Anyone who would call Old Eyebrows a neo-Stalinist obviously did not live in Brezhnev-era Russia

Brezhnev used neo-Stalinist policies. Overcentralization of the economy, imprisonment of dissidents, rehabilitation of Stalin and his policies, rollbacks in prior reforms, and the endless strengthening of the military at the cost of the economy are all plays out of the Stalinist playbook and were all used by his government. Hell, Brezhnev even used sanatoriums as a dumping ground for political enemies in a weakened version of the old prison system.

Stalin's policies weren't just the GULAGs and terrors, they were a comprehensive set of methods to maintain control over the country. The only difference this time is that Brezhnev didn't have the kinds of tools of state terror that Stalin did to make his plans work. His cult of personality was nothing more than a cynical sham; he was weak, but he was still a neo-Stalinist in policy.

lol. we dont ow anyone anything. we let off all of europe of their debts to us in ww2 so you guys can just suck a...what do you guys call moldy biscuits??....scones thats it. go suck a scone

You're an idiot.

...i wish you people would think before you spoke. regardless of weather you want to admit it or not. if america fell. so would the world. you would all starve to death and all of your money would be worthless. just like in the 30's. except it will be alot worse. sure china's economy may be growing. thats fine and dandy. it is expected to POSSIBLY surpass american economy in about 12 -20 years. however in 14-25 years they are expected to have a MASSIVE enviromental collapse because of all the pollution they are putting into their air. and when you cant feed your people because they cant grow food. they die...economy dies.... war breaks out...good bye eurasia. who will be the savior then? the "evil america" who has ALWAYS saved the worlds ass and has always been criticised for it later. like in ww2 when we nuked japan. and killed around 350k people...good im glad we did. im glad 350k japanese died. thats alot better than the 1MILLION JAPANESE AND 1MILLION AMERICANS that were predicted to have died if we had invaded. so anyone who wants to talk crap about america must prefer saying "heil hitler" everytime they answer the telephone...assuming they arent dead because they didnt have blonde/light brown hair and green/blue eyes...and where white...i guess all you america haters out there like that.. and comunism...and monarchy under britain....and all the blacks for the most part that are now functional parts of society...would still be banging on logs and eating each other today. you should thank god for america. not sit around and bash it because your country is full of a bunch of cowards who belive NOTHING is worth fighting for.

...Please do not let this idiot's words reflect upon mine at all...
...Racist ****...

Only the US/NATO wasn't exactly in a position to break the Soviet stranglehold over Eastern Europe.

Indeed, a great degree of US foreign intervention during the Cold War was in places where Soviet influence was minimal or simply imagined... like virtually all of Latin America.

Those were the "spheres of influence"; the Soviets had a grip on Eastern Europe, and the US had a grip on Latin America. Neither side could hope to muster the resources to try and realistically gain a foothold in each others' territories.

The closest the US got was Yugoslavia and Romania and the Soviets had Cuba and, briefly, Chile (before Allende was murdered).

And when the superpowers did face off more or less directly, the US clients tended to be at least as bad, if not worse, than those of the Soviet Union.

I do agree, especially in Africa. The Soviets tended to do a better job when it came to managing their clients, but of course it was clear what they were to be used for.

You're an idiot.

well u have to speak on levels that the mass can understand. im an american. im talking to...most probably a large amount of europeans who hate america because----dont really know why other than we stop you guys from blowing each other away about every 20 years...that doesnt make sence though u would think you guys would be grateful for saving you all from wiping your selves out but i guess not. its kinda like an angry bum. you give him a dollar and he gets mad cause you didnt give him five. i assume that the only way america could make the world happy is if we devoted all of our time to making the world better. but wait if we did that who would stop morons like france from surrendering to countries that arent even attacking them and were never concidering it in the first place? who would stop germany from convincing the russians that those tanks arent invading? who would stop britain from taking over another group of african tribes and enslaving them and then somehow convincing the world that only america had slaves? who would stop the thrid world countries from starving because they didnt have the red cross? europe? no..you guys can barly survive now. let alone if you didnt have america to ensure that opec didnt jack gas up to $500 a barrel. gas in britain is already around $11 a gallon (converted from pounds) so good luck. but yeah i agree with you all. america should go back to their old ways of isolationism and allow the rest of the world to wipe its self out. thats the easiest way to conquer the world. let the idiots kill them selves

The Soviets were a serious threat until that idiot Brezhnev started to impose neo-Stalinism and revert the reforms of Khrushchev. There were reasons why their economy grew at 7% per year in the 50's and 5-6% in the 60's, and it wasn't because they were following Stalinist economic policies.

I mean, the Soviets went from having a serious chance of overtaking the US to total economic collapse...they screwed up bad.
Hum...I am quite sure they WERE indeed following Stalinist economic policies, since they used the same Five-Year Plans he did. And they didn't bring economic collapse on themselves by screwing up (not really)--the Soviet and the US were racing for nuclear dominance and they outspent themselves. It wasn't an economic thing that destroyed their economy.

...Please do not let this idiot's words reflect upon mine at all...
...Racist ****...

im not being racist. i am completly against slavery. and im against racism. if your trying to say if the "west" hadnt went into africa than africa would be civilised anyway than you are an idiot

I guess I'm just tired of everyone saying 'BLAME THE US'!!!

We're all tired of hearing it, which is some of us are wanting a change. I think it's pretty arrogant to pretend the countless opposition voices are wrong, and the unilateral US voice is right.

Standing up for your principles in the face of overwhelming unpopularity is only admirable when the principles themselves are admirable.

Self-interest, while at the center of most policy decisions, is not in itself necessarily admirable.

im not being racist. i am completly against slavery. and im against racism. if your trying to say if the "west" hadnt went into africa than africa would be civilised anyway than you are an idiot

My god...You're stuck on stupid...

*sigh* I'm not going to argue with you anymore. If you think all Africans were doing before "The West" came was banging on logs and eating eachother....

You know what? I'm not gonna argue you...I have pride for my country, The United States of America. You're one of those pricks that makes American Pride look like Bigotry...

We're all tired of hearing it, which is some of us are wanting a change. I think it's pretty arrogant to pretend the countless opposition voices are wrong, and the unilateral US voice is right.

Standing up for your principles in the face of overwhelming unpopularity is only admirable when the principles themselves are admirable.

Self-interest, while at the center of most policy decision, is not in itself necessarily admirable.

You're right, its not admirable, but its annoying to know there is a planet wide population of hypocrites out there. America wasn't, isn't, and never will be the only country that has self interest at the center of their policies.

I would tell everyone to get the fuck over it, and move on

Hum...I am quite sure they WERE indeed following Stalinist economic policies, since they used the same Five-Year Plans he did. And they didn't bring economic collapse on themselves by screwing up (not really)--the Soviet and the US were racing for nuclear dominance and they outspent themselves. It wasn't an economic thing that destroyed their economy.

Well, the thing was that the composition of the Five-Year Plans was different; during the 1950's and 1960's, not only were incentives expanded and reformed to motivate productivity, but they also focused on consumer goods and quality with the intent of improving living standards. Regional control and competition were also added, which were important deviations from the Stalinist methods of economic planning. The shift from capital goods to consumer goods stimulated the economy by driving up consumption spending and by tapping in to pent-up demand from the Stalin years.

And really, the Soviet economic collapse was a combination of factors. The first was, of course, defense spending; it sapped money and skilled workers from the rest of the economy, and the losses from it hurt worker enthusiasm (what good is money if there's nothing to spend it on?) and weakened their growth. It's hardly coincidental that their qualitatively best growth happened when defense spending was kept under control.

Other things, like technological stagnation and the inability of the economy to improve productivity as a result contributed, but again they are products of the overwhelming defense spending which sapped away at the ability of the economy to focus on things besides the military and so impacted overall growth.

ok...ur right that isnt all they do and isnt all they did... i do agree with you on alot of what you have said before you misunderstood my statement. the un does nothing but stop conflict from being resolved.. what did they do in dunfur? took the guns from the people being massacred...i wish i could understand the "logic" of that move. cause all that did was make them easier to kill. the "un forces" are americans in un uniforms. america provides almost all funding for the un. i can prove it. in the 80's america left the un and they BEGGED us to come back...however i have gathered that you are one of those "democrats" who belive that minorities should have special rights because they are minorities...think about how democrocy is suposed to work. THE MOJORITY IS SUPOSSED TO RULE. not a small group of whiny people. if the mojarity wants something they should get it . regardless of 12% whom may not like it because "the man" keeps em down.

the most competitive economies are just as covertly universal slavery as any other kind, just better at concealing this and perfuming the stench of it.

nature does not kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper, and it is nature, not economics, without which, you would not live nor breathe.

the only thing dependent upon american people lying to themselves is pseudo-conservative american politics. the fall of american hegemony, won't, in and of itself, make anything better or worse for anyone outside of the u.s.

and those inside, are as likely to bennifit as did the people of great britain and othere western european countries as their colonies gained independence.

this is not about the merrits of one idiology as opposed to another. all idiologies are smoke screans to hide defacto slavery. capitolism and marxism are EQUALY likely to lead to tyranny and BOTH HAVE DONE SO.

(and faschism, whatever the hell that actualy is, other then the example of hitler, is, if anything, by that example even worse).

whereas an harmonious merrage of social welfare and universal individual opportunity, such as kept the trains running for 50 years in europe and japan when america was throwing them out with the bath water, is the one thing that has been demonstrated as better.

it was the combination of mom and pop retailing with unionized infrastructure that made possible the almost universal middle class that existed in the america i grew up in. that same middle class that ragun's throwing f.d.r.'s 'socalism' out with the bath water has nearly destroyed, and no amount of demonizing everything that refuses to kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper ever can or will, bring back.

there are other and even better possibilities. that no nation has as yet demonstrably practiced them, in no way precludes either their livability, nor potential for adoption. and no i am NOT aluding to anything resembling marxism or anything else that has a name ism. but rather simply NOT puting the arbitrary pretentions of ANY idiology ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in.

=^^=
.../\...

*Snip

=^^=
.../\...

Seriously, I'm starting a religion based on you Master Cameroi - that's our symbol, the one by which our religion will henceforth be known

I'd just like to note: Hey you people. If you want argue, please, please, please use actual English. It makes my eyes bleed when people are trying to put forth an intellectual argument and all goes well until I see words like "capitolism," "mojarity"/"mojority," "idiology," "merrage," and "faschism."

Happy debating!
The Dominion

I'd just like to note: Hey you people. If you want argue, please, please, please use actual English. It makes my eyes bleed when people are trying to put forth an intellectual argument and all goes well until I see words like "capitolism," "mojarity"/"mojority," "idiology," "merrage," and "faschism."

Happy debating!
The Dominion

Can you please, please, please pay for everyone's English written-language education then?

Not everyone is so fortunate to have perfect English - the debate is the point, not the spelling.

...Please do not let this idiot's words reflect upon mine at all...
...Racist ****...


Thank you for quoting it. If not.. I probably would've missed it.

so its racist to be realistic? alright im going off topic. i am amazed at liberals. in america if a white man calls a black man a nI**er he gets sewed. if a black man calls a white man a cracker nothing happens. white man beats up black man? HATE CRIME. black man beats up white man? self defence... and i better not hear anyone say something stupid like "reverse racism" its not. its still just racism. i just dont know how it happened. when people are so stupid they vote for what is "right" because thats what they are told is right. i dont think their is a such thing as a hate crime. because all violent crimes are hate crimes. think about it you liberal retards. if i shot you in a face im not gonna do it because i like u. its probably gonna be because i hate you. and now for guns. people who think guns are bad are also idiots, if we dont have guns than what happens when you get jumped cause you wore the wrong colored shirt? your gonna die thats what will happen. did you know that a study concluded that 1300 crimes A DAY are prevented by the presence of a gun? i bet u didnt. i bet u just thought that all guns=crime/death. people are going to be killed. guns do make it "easier" sure. but a method that would work alot better for gun control than taking all the guns away and assuming the criminals wouldnt get them anyway, is to make it mandatory to own a gun after 21. think about it. if you KNOW for a fact that the guy your about to rob has a gun your probably not going to be to anxious to rob him are you? ...thank you

Can you please, please, please pay for everyone's English written-language education then?

Not everyone is so fortunate to have perfect English - the debate is the point, not the spelling.
If they can spell infrastructure and pseudo-conservative, they can spell majority, capitalism, marriage, and whatnot. Some people simply do not pay attention to their typing.

In addition, I dare you to tell an intellectual/professional that the ideas presented in your work is all that matters and not how it is presented.

That is all.

Edit: Having "perfect" English is not a matter of fortune. Having poor English is a matter of sloth (or inability to access a proper educational facility).

If and when that bubble bursts, they will be hit hard. India's growth is far more balanced and far more sustainable, and isn't as overinvested as the Chinese by a long stretch. In fact, they're probably fairly underinvested in most major sectors outside of IT and related fields.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I don't believe you. People have been prophecising China's collapse for more than a decade now, and yet their economists have proven themselves very capable people.

I agree with Undelia that democracy and economic development aren't necessarily connected. In fact, China's ability to simply impose infrastructure and upgrades on people mean that it has been far more successful in building up a manufacturing industry than India. The sheer chaos of the Indian democracy (which is far from perfect on provincial and local levels) and the various lobbying have held them back in that respect. Not to mention that India is nowhere near as open to the international economy these days, not least because in India protectionists get votes, in China they get jail terms.

There's plenty of room for both of them. I don't share your view that China's economy is based on bubbles. I agree that particularly the share market is going to see some turbulence in the years ahead, but that's not going to bring down their economy. Hell, even their financial system is a lot better than it was a few years ago.

If they can spell infrastructure and pseudo-conservative, they can spell majority, capitalism, marriage, and whatnot. Some people simply do not pay attention to their typing.

In addition, I dare you to tell an intellectual/professional that the ideas presented in your work is all that matters and not how it is presented.

That is all.

Edit: Having "perfect" English is not a matter of fortune. Having poor English is a matter of sloth (or inability to access a proper educational facility).

This is neither a business presentation nor a university exam, perhaps the slothfulness is on your part for not taking the time to extract the meaning from the post.

There are plenty of forums where people take the time and effort to ensure their spelling and grammar is correct. This is not one of them, and so much more fun it is for that.

Yet, ultimately, your post sounds like intellectual snobbery to me.

They're selling goods to produce more of them, and the growth is simply feeding on itself rather than an actual consumer market. It's simply not sustainable growth, at least not a good chunk of it.

Is there any reason why growing disposable incomes in China will not foster a consumer market that can sustain its manufacturing when export-driven growth falters ?

This is happening already in India where manufacturing is booming and posting impressive growth rates due to demand from domestic market.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I don't believe you. People have been prophecising China's collapse for more than a decade now, and yet their economists have proven themselves very capable people.

*snip*

There's plenty of room for both of them. I don't share your view that China's economy is based on bubbles. I agree that particularly the share market is going to see some turbulence in the years ahead, but that's not going to bring down their economy. Hell, even their financial system is a lot better than it was a few years ago.

China's economy is supported by two things.

i. The enormous amounts of deluded (both monetary and morally deluded) inward investment, investment that is either going straight down the drain or straight down the pockets of corruption.
ii. The enormous savings of the Chinese, which is supporting banks that are so inefficient that it beggars belief.

That money is now going into property - huge projects that have no short-term, or possibly long-term returns. I'd like to have a list of western countries that have turned a profit in China, discounting the investments they've put in. I'd say Nokia, possibly an FMCG, certainly some hotel chains but little else so far.

It's a simple fact that countries that rely on this sort of growth tend to have a collapse at some point. The best example of this was Asia '97.

Now, the difference is that most of those Asian countries did not have to deal with a billion, 'tend to revolution' people, yet governments still fell. China does.

The fact is that China will almost certainly go through a crash, how they cope with that and whether it will result in chaos is the actual question.

India has pretty much the same problem alas.

Democracy has little effect on the end result.

The difference between India and China, which does stem from the political system is again, twofold.

First, most money and media in this world resides in America, which has long been fascinated by China - why shouldn't it, it sits on the other side of the Pacific. Thus, that money and media buzz heads to China first.

Second, if you go to India, whatever the figures might say, the place is freakin' chaotic. China is less so, and that is due to a government that let's people see what it (the government) wants to see as opposed to a government that let's people see what they (the people) want to see.

Given a little time, I suspect investment will switch more and more to India.

i. The enormous amounts of deluded (both monetary and morally deluded) inward investment, investment that is either going straight down the drain or straight down the pockets of corruption.
Now, I accept that some people really enjoy the idea of irrational investment...but for two decades straight?

ii. The enormous savings of the Chinese, which is supporting banks that are so inefficient that it beggars belief.
It's gotten a lot better over the past few years. And it will continue to do so, I think.

The pervasive impression I got from the Chinese government these days is that they're well aware of the pitfalls they might encounter and are actually working on them, so far with pretty good success.

They're working on liberalising the banking system right now as well as making banks more secure against crises. There'll be a few take-overs, and in the end there'll be a few world-class institutions left over. That's how things always work.

That money is now going into property - huge projects that have no short-term, or possibly long-term returns. I'd like to have a list of western countries that have turned a profit in China, discounting the investments they've put in. I'd say Nokia, possibly an FMCG, certainly some hotel chains but little else so far.
Do you have any sort of proof of this?

China is one of the few places GM is still making money, to mention just one example I came across recently.

It's a simple fact that countries that rely on this sort of growth tend to have a collapse at some point. The best example of this was Asia '97.
Which of course had completely different reasons behind it, and can't be used as any sort of comparison. Not least because China's government by now has ridiculously huge currency reserves.

The fact is that China will almost certainly go through a crash, how they cope with that and whether it will result in chaos is the actual question.
A crash on some financial markets, possibly. But manufacturing doesn't suffer crashes in the normal sense of the word. Even if Chinese demand were to suddenly collapse because everyone lost all their money in the stock market (a silly idea), the rest of the world would still want Chinese exports, so things would still chug along.

Second, if you go to India, whatever the figures might say, the place is freakin' chaotic.

Haha...yes it is chaotic, but we thrive in that chaos.

When it comes to regime change, we just replaced one dictator with one who we could control.
Excuse me, but Allende won the elections and was no dictator, yet the US chose to replace him with Pinochet, killing Allende and thousands of Chileans in the process.


And fuck the UN, stuck up snobbish fools can't actually get anything done anyway.

Yep, THEY'RE so snobbish the US is a founding member of the UN and has veto power in the Security Council.
Guess who invented the UN? The US.



The Atmosphere of hatred comes with being the best. period. Everyone envies the US, and thats the real reason they dislike us. European pricks.

Envy a country that has the highest murder per inhabitants rate of all industrialised countries; no public health service; a precarious public education system; just a formal democracy; death penalty; shorter life expectation at birth than most european countries; a complete asshole for president... yeah right, look how much I envy the US.

I dislike the US whenever they try to enforce their model on us Europeans. If the Americans want rampant capitali$m in their own home, it's their own business.
Oh, and fuck the IMF, while we're at it.

No. In fact, our policies are one of the primary reasons it's in the shape that it is.

More organized, peaceful and integrated than it has been in a century?

Now, I accept that some people really enjoy the idea of irrational investment...but for two decades straight?

Yes, it started from an extremely low base

It's gotten a lot better over the past few years. And it will continue to do so, I think.

You have no idea of the corruption

The pervasive impression I got from the Chinese government these days is that they're well aware of the pitfalls they might encounter and are actually working on them, so far with pretty good success.

They are aware and no measure they've put in place has halted the exuberance of investment, nor the overheated economy, nor the huge property bubble

They're working on liberalising the banking system right now as well as making banks more secure against crises. There'll be a few take-overs, and in the end there'll be a few world-class institutions left over. That's how things always work.

Look, every fast-rising economy goes through a major crash - it's how it's handled that makes the difference

Do you have any sort of proof of this?

China is one of the few places GM is still making money, to mention just one example I came across recently.

I'm not sure I need it, GM has invested billions - they may make annual profits on paper but that doesn't count the investment they've put in

Which of course had completely different reasons behind it, and can't be used as any sort of comparison. Not least because China's government by now has ridiculously huge currency reserves.

The UK is a good example of a country wasting huge amounts of reserves a la '87 George Soros affair


A crash on some financial markets, possibly. But manufacturing doesn't suffer crashes in the normal sense of the word. Even if Chinese demand were to suddenly collapse because everyone lost all their money in the stock market (a silly idea), the rest of the world would still want Chinese exports, so things would still chug along.

Chinese demand on the world is minimal - imports are dwarfed by exports - I'm not talking about loss of money, I'm talking about instability.

900 million peasants is a large crowd to get angry, and if you look at Chinese history, it's a history of peasant revolutions, the Communists are no different

Haha...yes it is chaotic, but we thrive in that chaos.

That is most enjoyably true

"How much?"
"Up to you sir"
"Ok, then 10 rupees"
"Oh no no no sir"
"Then how much"
"Up to you sir"

Lovely :)

That is most enjoyably true

"How much?"
"Up to you sir"
"Ok, then 10 rupees"
"Oh no no no sir"
"Then how much"
"Up to you sir"

Lovely :)

lol.

One of the reasons that I am optimistic about India is the people of India. They are doing good despite the system, and as the system (infrastructure, business environment etc) gets better, they are bound to get even better. We can see the beginnings of this long-awaited infrastructure changes. As retail market is being consolidated by big chain stores like Reliance etc, they are forced to invest in logistics to make better supply chains. If the govt is not going to build roads on its own, these companies will force them to approve infrastructure project where private companies can invest and build it.

In China things are done by the system (top-driven) and they will find it harder (not impossible, mind you) when they have to make the inevitable political transition to a freer structure.

The UK is behind who?
NZ?
Competitiveness means?

Damnit Brown!

Canada is losing to Sweden?!?!?! Jesus Hardcore Christ. Good job Harper. The economy is supposed to be the thing your party is 1337 at, but we've lost 3 positions with you.
Minority governments are bigger governments, because they're constantly pandering to everyone in order to hold power.

If Harper wins a majority, watch the demeanor of the government change in an instant.

Yes, it started from an extremely low base
That makes no sense. People invest irrationally maybe once or twice. They don't continue to do so for two decades unless someone is earning money out of it.

You have no idea of the corruption
And you do? These days if a party official gets caught on corruption charges, the penalties include death. The World Bank puts the place in the 30th percentile, which isn't great but also includes all the little backwater villages in the West. I'd be willing to bet that the governor of Shanghai can't afford to be exuberantly corrupt, simply because Beijing needs things to be clear and transparent enough to continue attracting investment.

And by the way, I was talking about the stability of the financial system, not corruption.

They are aware and no measure they've put in place has halted the exuberance of investment, nor the overheated economy, nor the huge property bubble
Okay, I need you to give me any sort of support for your arguments. You can't come along and claim all sorts of stuff.

I realise that past attempts to slow down the economy haven't been as effective as Beijing had hoped. I don't believe that this points to "exuberance" or "bubbles". In fact, how property prices in one of the future economic centres of the world rising constitute a "bubble" is beyond me.

If you want bubbles, look for pricing in the suburbs of cities like London or Perth. That's land that doesn't have a whole lot of commercial value and is only priced by the skyrocketing demand. A lot alongside the river in the Bund is worth something commercially.

Look, every fast-rising economy goes through a major crash - it's how it's handled that makes the difference
And I don't disagree with you. I simply think that you're making the same mistake people have made for a decade now, prophecising some sort of all-powerful crash moreso because you can't believe what China is achieving rather than any sort of actual evidence.

I'm not sure I need it...
You always need evidence if you claim things. Especially things like "almost no company that invested in China got their money back".

The UK is a good example of a country wasting huge amounts of reserves a la '87 George Soros affair
Not sure what you're talking about. I know about "Black Wednesday", in which a smart man made money off the stupidity of the Bank of England.

But we'd have to see an entirely new level of this to trouble China, which now holds more than $1.2 trillion in reserves. That's not to say it's impossible, but it isn't exactly likely, not least because the Chinese are unlikely to repeat mistakes.

Chinese demand on the world is minimal - imports are dwarfed by exports -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Exports $974 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.)
Imports $777.9 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

You were saying?

I'm not talking about loss of money, I'm talking about instability.
And how does instability do anything to stop the factories in China producing stuff?

All it might do is slow down the inflow of investment into Chinese financial markets, and perhaps also dent FDI a little. That's gonna hurt, and China won't be growing at 10% for a few years, but the sheer physical reality of the factories being there and producing make it pretty much impossible for the thing to actually "collapse".

900 million peasants is a large crowd to get angry, and if you look at Chinese history, it's a history of peasant revolutions, the Communists are no different
Most of those 900 million aren't involved with financial markets, and many don't bother much with manufacturing either.

That makes no sense. People invest irrationally maybe once or twice. They don't continue to do so for two decades unless someone is earning money out of it.

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_17/b3678084.htm

You can discount the 80's, very little money was invested and most of it was lost. More money was invested and lost in the 90's. There's plenty of books documenting this - look at the Beijing Jeep Company.

MNCs have invested billions in infrastructure, technology transfer, management know-how - please find me a company that has made its ROI.

GM is just starting to make annual profit on paper, but China has already copied it's most successful product, had it allowed through the courts and locally made cars will beat out GM and the like - BMW has more chance because it's at the luxury end.

And you do? These days if a party official gets caught on corruption charges, the penalties include death. The World Bank puts the place in the 30th percentile, which isn't great but also includes all the little backwater villages in the West. I'd be willing to bet that the governor of Shanghai can't afford to be exuberantly corrupt, simply because Beijing needs things to be clear and transparent enough to continue attracting investment.

The penalties have always included death. The Mayor of Shanghai was actually done for corruption but this was politically motivated, it helped Hu Jintao weaken the power base of Jiang Zhemin and his Shanghai clique. Nothing is done is China without political input, it's the nature of the system. The corruption is still outstanding, most visibly seen by the daughters of provincial governors driving round Beijing and Shanghai in BMW X5's and living in huge houses

And by the way, I was talking about the stability of the financial system, not corruption.

Yet you miss how corruption affects the stability of the financial system, of any country. It wastes money, leads to inefficiency and causes resentment. If a political body has a hand in every area of the financial system, well, it literally has a hand in it.

Okay, I need you to give me any sort of support for your arguments. You can't come along and claim all sorts of stuff.

I realise that past attempts to slow down the economy haven't been as effective as Beijing had hoped. I don't believe that this points to "exuberance" or "bubbles". In fact, how property prices in one of the future economic centres of the world rising constitute a "bubble" is beyond me.

If you want bubbles, look for pricing in the suburbs of cities like London or Perth. That's land that doesn't have a whole lot of commercial value and is only priced by the skyrocketing demand. A lot alongside the river in the Bund is worth something commercially.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aMia4YSKrIzg&refer=home

And I don't disagree with you. I simply think that you're making the same mistake people have made for a decade now, prophecizing some sort of all-powerful crash more so because you can't believe what China is achieving rather than any sort of actual evidence.

It's just history, fast-rising economies go through a crash and China will be no different - perhaps they'll cope, perhaps they won't, but their political system doesn't help.

You always need evidence if you claim things. Especially things like "almost no company that invested in China got their money back".

Right, if you can get me access into MNC accounts I'll provide the proof but in the meantime you can read the volume of books on the subject - James McGregor's One Billion Customers is a start, Mr. China is another - those are gentle introductions - then you can read Jasper Becker - and these are the optimists.

Not sure what you're talking about. I know about "Black Wednesday", in which a smart man made money off the stupidity of the Bank of England.

But we'd have to see an entirely new level of this to trouble China, which now holds more than $1.2 trillion in reserves. That's not to say it's impossible, but it isn't exactly likely, not least because the Chinese are unlikely to repeat mistakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

You were saying?

China is importing steel and petrol, not western products. It's raping Africa while cozying up to M.E. and S.America. Yet it's America/Europe that's buying, so if the American/European consumer gets in trouble, China will also be in trouble.

And how does instability do anything to stop the factories in China producing stuff?

All it might do is slow down the inflow of investment into Chinese financial markets, and perhaps also dent FDI a little. That's gonna hurt, and China won't be growing at 10% for a few years, but the sheer physical reality of the factories being there and producing make it pretty much impossible for the thing to actually "collapse".

Most of those 900 million aren't involved with financial markets, and many don't bother much with manufacturing either.

See above point - I think the issue here is that you think I'm talking of a collapse, I'm not, I'm saying that China will experience a crash, as all fast-rising markets do. How they deal with that crash is the issue. The US got through the Great Depression - can China get through theirs?

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_17/b3678084.htm
And you don't think people made money of being in the tulip trade?

There's plenty of books documenting this - look at the Beijing Jeep Company.
Dumb decisions end up with bad outcomes. Only a fool would suggest that simply throwing money into China is a good decision. It has to be done well, and as part of a bigger strategy.

MNCs have invested billions in infrastructure, technology transfer, management know-how - please find me a company that has made its ROI.
http://www.tdctrade.com/econforum/hkcer/hkcer041001.htm
Q. In the short term, is it profitable for U.S. firms to invest directly in China?

A. Yes, it is and it is becoming more profitable over time. From 2002 data collected by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the estimated rate of return of U.S. direct investment in China was 14 percent, compared with 8 percent for U.S. direct investment in all countries. That does not even include the $723 million in net payments of royalties and fees from Chinese firms to U.S. firms for technology transfers. In fact, investing in China is becoming more profitable for U.S. firms, since the average annual rate of return between 1994 and 2002 was estimated to be 10 percent.

GM is just starting to make annual profit on paper, but China has already copied it's most successful product, had it allowed through the courts and locally made cars will beat out GM and the like - BMW has more chance because it's at the luxury end.
Actually, GM is working in a joint venture with that company. It's not a copy as such.

http://www.gm.com/company/corp_info/global_operations/asia_pacific/chin.html

But as I said, GM was just one example I remembered because I recently read about China being one of the very few places the company was still making a profit.

The corruption is still outstanding, most visibly seen by the daughters of provincial governors driving round Beijing and Shanghai in BMW X5's and living in huge houses
And would you suggest that State Governor's daughters in the US don't live in nice houses and drive around in BMWs?

Maybe it's simply the fact that being a high-ranked party members is a well-paying job.

If a political body has a hand in every area of the financial system, well, it literally has a hand in it.
Of course it does, and of course that causes instability to some extent. But in China's case on balance one would have to say there have been more pros to investing there than cons, and that the governance is steadily improving (as for example the study in my OP pointed out, where China now gets higher governance scores than the US).

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aMia4YSKrIzg&refer=home
Fair enough, it looks like the potential for a bubble developing is there. It also seems like policymakers are concerned and are considering interest rate rises, which is the standard response to something like this.

Everything in China happens on a huge scale, but I don't think these things are all that different from the sort of stuff that happens in other countries.

It's just history, fast-rising economies go through a crash and China will be no different - perhaps they'll cope, perhaps they won't, but their political system doesn't help.
Political systems by themselves have little effect on economic performance (strictly seperating political organisation and economic policy). The fairly centralised Chilean dictatorship performed well, as did very decentralised places like the US. And by the same token some dictatorships fall because of economic hardship and others survive, just like democracies.

The thing that really matters in my opinion is the quality of the economists and officials that the government employs. To me it looks like the Chinese have some very good economists and a bunch of politicians who actually listen to them, plus no real political opposition to deal with. That's probably about as good a basis with which to deal with problems and crises as they come.

Right, if you can get me access into MNC accounts I'll provide the proof...
I posted above a link that points to figures from the US department of commerce.

...but in the meantime you can read the volume of books on the subject - James McGregor's One Billion Customers is a start, Mr. China is another - those are gentle introductions - then you can read Jasper Becker - and these are the optimists.
None of these books tell us anything about return on investment in China. All they do is make money for a few writers who reckon they got it all figured out (which may well be true, I don't know). They tell stories about dumb decisions leading to dumb outcomes, which should hardly surprise anyone. Nor is it especially unique to China.

China is importing steel and petrol, not western products.
That's just plain false. Many of the machines that are making the stuff China produces are from the West. Advanced equipment is all imported.

The biggest importers into China are Japan, South Korea and Taiwan (makes sense, since they're right next door). And then come the US and Germany.

And that's not even mentioning that the big steel companies are mostly Western firms, with one or two Indian and Russian exceptions. And the same goes for petrol.

It's raping Africa while cozying up to M.E. and S.America.
Raping?

Yet it's America/Europe that's buying, so if the American/European consumer gets in trouble, China will also be in trouble.
Yes. Though China still has several million fairly affluent consumers at home.

But the truth remains: the economies are all interconnected. That shouldn't come as a surprise and is the same for everyone (with perhaps the exception of North Korea).

The US got through the Great Depression - can China get through theirs?
Considering how the US government reacted to the crisis, I have all the confidence in the world that the Chinese government can do better.

But my initial point was that I don't think India is in a much better position and I don't think India will overtake China in economic terms. China isn't doomed to fail, so far they have been pretty good at dealing with the issues that came up.

*snip*

Well, it's a debate that greater minds than ours are not in agreement on.

I'm trying to find Hu Jintao's official salary - as a communist government they're really not paid much officially.

As I say, it's my feeling and I guess only time will tell, but certainly China's economy will crash sooner or later - it's the result that's up for debate. I think India is better positioned for the future - it will crash too but the openess of their government means that danger won't be hidden when it comes, China will fudge numbers, deny statistics and more in order to maintain a facade of calm.

Finally - I really don't think they'll catch up with the US anytime soon - there's huge problems in terms of infrastructure, education, poverty and corruption that, I suppose, America went through as well.

As much as you decry those who say China will collapse, I decry those who think America is doomed. Once more for this board, I'm not even American :)

China in Africa (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4068) - funnily enough it says China is the 2nd most likely country to pay bribes to secure business, alas for my point, India is first :(

But my initial point was that I don't think India is in a much better position and I don't think India will overtake China in economic terms. China isn't doomed to fail, so far they have been pretty good at dealing with the issues that came up.

I don't think Chinese economy is doomed per se, but I do think that within my lifetime, India will match China. There is room for both to grow. There is room for everybody. Economics need not be a strict zero sum game.

Btw, due to unprecedented continued growth and rupee appreciation, India became a trillion dollar economy - beating projections by Goldman Sachs and such companies.