On December 08 2010 05:22 D10 wrote: China will win the US any day of the week, both country nuke each other and allies to oblivion, many more chinese will survive since they are more numerous they will rebuild faster.
The US has far better attack capabilities then China does in terms of range. China has mostly been buying up defensive rockets anyways, but their navy is growing quite rapidly. Anyways India would likely bomb China before the US would. The US would just join in after all decimate china and then all the competing manufacturing jobs are opened up in the US again. You also just killed like 1/4-1/3rd of the population in one of the growing polluters of green house gases so you just helped the ego freaks!
nuclear subs tech = everyone dies
You can intercept nukes and the US has invested heavily into this tech. It is also true that China is near to having more submarines then the US has although gross numbers or tonnage is not really a measure of military might. Just saying China in terms of military allies wouldn't have too many as they burn bridges to get ahead economically while India would have the US among others, it's why even like minded communist counties like Vietnam would side with the US in that kind of conflict.
I'm going to completely ignore the squabble (edit: you and D10) are trying to stir up about nuclear war between the two countries, as its rather obvious that only a psychopath would believe that either country would profit from initiating a nuclear war.
To address your other point about why China and Vietnam are not allied:
Vietnam is allied with the USA, not China, because China decided to invade Vietnam twice after the Vietnam war ended. It has absolutely nothing to do with China's supposed burning of bridges to get ahead economically. It was mostly a comment to who has military might in the regions and who is aligned with who, although china has deals with resource rich counties they aren't exactly who you would tell your parents you are friends with.
In fact, China has proven over the last 15 years that their economic and diplomatic efforts have been far more effective in securing lucrative economic agreements with foreign countries than the US of A.
Further, China and the USA are currently facing off in a game of encirclement. The USA has S. Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Australia, and India. China has everything else, has port rights in every SEA country except Vietnam, has a trans-Siberian railroad that reaches all the way through the EU now, and extensive contracts for natural resources in both Central Asia and the Middle East. China now has an extremely strong presence on the African continent as well, including arms trade, construction, and exploitation of natural resources. India has also made several overtures to improving bilateral trade between the two countries. S. America is also currently in negotiations with China about cross-Pacific trade.
Now, where exactly in this dossier of China's diplomatic achievements includes this burning of bridges that you speak of?
It's rather the willing ness of china to deal with "governments" that 1st world counties would not like Burma. It's not that china lacks allies it's that they lack allies of counties who carry weight in the rest of the world, they deal with resource rich countries just not necessarily stable ones.
I don't see how political stability matters. If you look at the USA's list of allies, you will find many many unstable countries among them. It's just those unstable countries are now shifting more and more towards relations with the EU, China, and Russia. To be quite frank, political stability matters for diddly other than supplying a strong base of markets to sell to. In terms of the war for natural resources, unstable countries are what it's all about. And in that realm, China is doing better and better, which absolutely defies any statement of "burning bridges."
China also has quite good relations with the EU and Russia. And despite all of Obama's mewlings, the USA still does quite a lot of business with China and I don't see that going down any further.
Was busy for a couple of days so no hate because I quote older posts..
On December 07 2010 12:31 Horse...falcon wrote: Also some of China's consistent growth is artificially created. There's a brand new town outside of some big city (I forgot which one) that's completely empty. Some officials there wanted to build it to show off their GDP growth numbers to their superiors but it's completely stupid.
The town is called "Ordos" in english (don't know the chinese name atm - /e turns out it is ordos in chinese as well..interesting). I think it is because of the "Ordos loop" which is nearby.
Some impressive documentary by AlJazeeraEnglish: - keep in mind that this is not up to date anymore. Not sure if the town really is occupied right now (I would doubt it), but the report is older.
On December 07 2010 12:31 Horse...falcon wrote: Not saying this is a major problem but I'd like to state that official Party estimates for GDP might be overstated. Current estimates for China's GDP growth expects a continued rate of 10% growth every year. Although they've maintained it in the past, I think it will slow down. China is not replacing the US as a superpower as it's much more likely we will end up with a world with two superpowers.
There are also estimates which factor in the ecological damage. If those are applied the GDP falls to around 0% or 4% if I am not mistaken. The NY-Times has some good read on this (maybe a bit biased, but interesting nonetheless): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 (page 2 is about the green gdp).
On December 08 2010 01:28 StorkHwaiting wrote: China also has absolutely zero historical context with the Muslim world like America does. Christianity vs Islam has a lot more history and rhetoric behind it than Islam vs Chinese Socialism. The Jihadis would have a lot of trouble trying to rile up their base to get into it with China on an international scale. The worst they could say is China eats a hell of a lot of pork and they need to liberate their Uighur brothers. China also does not have anywhere near the same level of invasive and manipulative foreign machinations like the US does. I find it very strange that Swiftspear is talking like China would have much need to deal with the "Muslim threat" which is pretty much a bogeyman created by the US military to justify their insane expenditures of tax money.
This is by no means true. China has a lot of context with the Muslim world, it is just not as big as the US. But there are some Muslims in China and there are a lot of problems, and no, this isn't limited to the Uigurs. While Islamist now may have problems "communicating" hate towards China, it will become easier in time, as China becomes more and more important. The chinese workforce in Africa is already having a lot of problems/negative press and I doubt this will be different in the "center" of Islam. I am sure China does not want to deal with the "Muslim threat" as it costs and occupies America and makes business relations that much more easy, but this is an advantage China may not be able to hold forever. As time progresses China will get involved, and being involded just leads to drama and problems.
--- Regarding the whole "Americans are lazy" argument: During my time in China I was stunned by how the west doesn't know how live is in China. It is by no means a "working death factory". Personally I feel live is pretty chilled out, even in big Cities like Beijing. Chinese people, to me, seem to have a natural talent for composure. I think you kinda have to if you live there (everything just takes longer). This also applies for work. I am not saying chinese are lazy, they aren't by no means. But they aren't all little robots who work 24/7. Restaurants are usually overstaffed (at least in the eyes of a western person) and even work in factories isn't all that "inhuman" (judging from a couple of factories I have visited). That doesn't mean that there is no pressure or inhuman slave labor happing (hey foxconn, how do you do?!), it is just by no means as large as it is percieved in the west. Personally I think this is a good thing. It lowers the stress level of large parts of the population, reduces unemployment and doesn't hurt the economy too much (not sure if it is hurting it at all). Something western societies could learn from China imo.
On December 07 2010 18:42 [Ryuzaki] wrote: I consider that China's future GDP and per capita GDP is bright. It will continue to develop, however at what rate relative to other countries is uncertain. China's particular style of development would be capitalism with communist characteristics, effective because of high public saving rates and capital reserves and availability. China may meet the US and EU in GDP in reasonable time, because of its effective investment and significant capital reserves. But through the international market, I can see the US and EU capitalizing on any excessive growth. I consider that China has the potential to have a larger nominal GDP.
GDP Development: China is proceeding quickly through development; industrialization in heavy manufacturing to the development of its tertiary sector (services) and it's quickly catching up with technology. Countries usually have most difficulty moving from manufacturing to services, however China seems to be doing it with ease. I'd attribute a significant proportion of China catching up due to FDI. China can develop so quickly only because it uses practices from countries which have been building core-functionalism to get to their current facility. Another reason why China will be able to so quickly develop further and transition from a labor intensive industry to a capital intensive industry is because of the current international climate; information and development techniques are easily traded due to recent innovations in communication, transport and increasing FDI. A lot of the transition is not only infrastructure but practice; to become a country aiming for value added goods, significant changes are required to practices such as management techniques, education, R&D and innovation. When looking at the east Asian region, most countries such as Japan and South Korea took most of their time to move from manufacturing to services. China's investment in infrastructure is also facilitating growth. China's financial system is also reasonably healthy.
Possible Problems: I think it's also safe to ignore China's insecurity due to large domestic NPLs because of the government's vast reserves and I'm unconvinced that the USD will depreciate to the extent of becoming uncompetitive any time soon affecting these reserves. China also has an issue with energy security, requiring significant imports of coal and oil. This is currently damaging China's trade deficit; China was requiring more and more energy, some estimate nearing double each few years. In relation to the new nuclear reactors, I personally see it as a very viable source of energy (looking at France), although I do question the location; as China's primary cities are located on the coast close to the pacific ring of fire (natural disaster prone) and to place them too far inland would be inefficient. It would be dangerous for the reactors to be located in these zones because of nuclear reactors susceptibility to earthquakes and the like; although effective engineering could lessen this danger. The aging population is a problem and the cost of labor will most likely increase, but if China can focus on capital intensive goods and services, it will avoid significant falls in GDP. The low dependency ratio is partially the reason which domestic saving rates in China are actually so high. India has very low saving rates (going up now) because there is still problems with fertility rates and property rights. (I consider that India will be on the same ground as China was a few years ago when it fixes such problems) China's companies are also relatively uncompetitive, state owned SOE (companies) are more competitive because positions are given based on merit. The private sector will require more freedom in the future, if it wants to become more efficient and value competitive. There are also possible cultural limitation in relation to technology R&D, I'd say that Confucianism generally promotes conservative ethics towards the new and I think the Chinese are currently inclined to avoid uncertainty.(quite reasonable)
The People of China: After taking into account China's GDP growth I think its best to look at the people. Because of China's large population and elitist bureaucracy it will take a longer for them to reach a comparable per capita GDP and a less heterogeneous income equality. Unless I'm mistaken there is still problems with cronyism in China and although information is becoming more easily accessible (no thanks to the great firewall), I would say that the Chinese have a tendency to respect their superiors grandeur regardless of how great the income gap is and changes to culture and core philosophies can take a lot of time and effort. Politically I think the Chinese government will become more representative and democratic alongside its development and associated freedoms of information and communication, when people see the positives from liberties. If China is measured by the 'rise' in the average persons quality of life; China's standard of living will take more time and more consistent national effectiveness to become comparative to the US. I would think this is the best way to measure China's rise relative to China's citizens, but not for the rest of the world, or in this context; the US.
Affect on US Economy: From the perspective of the US economy, a rise in China's GDP could result in many changes in its economic condition. However the same thing can be seen in any country, the US will be affected for the worse if its production becomes uncompetitive because China's shift in production. The US will need to make new innovations and rationalizations to production and its goods and services if it doesn't want to lose out. The US could benefit on the rise of China, if it capitalizes on the right industries (for example China is fast becoming a huge market for cars). But at the very least, it may wake further potential in the US market. I'd consider any complacency in the US market a symptom of poor regulation and loose policy.
Geopolitical and Cultural Influence of the US: From the geopolitical and cultural perspective of the US, like any time in history when a large economy comes into power, the larger country normally has more companions and more assets and therefore gets more say in what happens. Because I consider that China will need to undergo changes to its values ie human rights and such, in order to sustain a flourishing tertiary sector (one of the two engines of growth). I see no problem with less US values and more Chinese values in the international-political environment. I don't consider there to be any dangers associated with China's growth, because in growing it increasingly needs to develop.
Remember that due to the 'rise of China' international consumers will benefit from a higher level of international competition primarily in product cost, but also in value through the rise of China. Although certain products may become specific to the Chinese market.
These are just my opinions based on a limited knowledge, please tell me what you think. ♪♪
I appreciate your insights. I find myself hard-pressed to disagree with anything you wrote.
Pretty good write-up. A few points I disagree with:
China's financial system is reasonably healthy - I disagree. There is a shit-ton of non-servicing debt in China's banking system. This is due to corruption at the local official level. The central government is trying to work on this, but it's a tough issue. Suffice to say, money is cheap in China right now and a great deal of it is going to line local officials' pockets on business ventures that don't even exist.
Nuclear infrastructure - Great point about inefficiency if the nuclear reactors are built inland and instability/danger if they're built in the coastal areas. This is why I think it'd be nice if China invested more money into geothermal solutions. Sichuan province would be a fantastic candidate for geothermal energy. There are many other areas of China with large fault-lines and areas that would be very conducive to geothermal energy. I would hope for a more composite solution to China's energy needs. I do think the use of coal is very disturbing and highly polluting and it doesn't look like China's going to reduce their coal usage anytime soon. Too damn cheap to stop.
Technology R&D - Confucianism doesn't really exist in China anymore. They worship capitalism way more than they worship Confucius. I highly doubt that Confucianism is a major reason for China lagging behind in terms of science and innovation. I think it has more to do with China having to rebuild their entire scientific infrastructure and scientific community after WW2 than it does with any cultural issue. This reads to me more like a Westerner reading Chinese history and trying to extrapolate that to modern day China. It doesn't apply. Cultural revolution did a good job of hitting the reset button. It's a good explanation for the Qing Dynasty though.
People of China - I think cronyism is part of the problem here, but cronyism is more a symptom rather than the root cause. The root cause of quality of life not improving is the lack of regulatory bodies in many aspects of Chinese society. This is a nation that grew up very fast and it's still suffering from growth pains. Like Upton Sinclair's "Jungle" did for America, China needs a wake up call in terms of realizing the need for rigorous regulations in all aspects of their economy. Despite what Republicans think, "freedom" and "free market" don't work without regulatory bodies to make sure corporations don't pull shenanigans. China lacks these right now, which leads to melamine in milk, lead in paint, etc. FDA, FCC etc all necessary to improve quality of life for average Chinese people.
Also important is the maturation in service industries, tech industries, etc so that the formation of a middle class can occur. Those would be the two major factors IMO, more so than stamping out cronyism or gradually understanding political liberties are needed.
Finance: I hadn't realized the availability of cash was going into ineffective businesses. I touched on the NPL, I guess that in itself is an indicator for financial reforms. A lot of countries who were in a similar position with their financial sectors were pushed to make such reforms due to financial crises (most of East Asia, particularly Japan) However, I don't consider that China will have the same problems with debt finance and capital availability.
Energy: I'm pleased someone else has considered geothermal a solution for China. I was talking to another and apparently China could take the geothermal power path, however it would be more cost efficient to focus on hydroelectric. Although I'm not aware of the different costs associated with each type of plant. Australia is certainly pleased the coal plant is very efficient.
Technology R&D: Perhaps I was making an aged connection to Confucian values in the Chinese economy, am I right in saying that they are strong rationalists in the market? If so, this perhaps may lead to future investment and promotion of R&D.
People of China: I agree that with maturation, the tertiary sector will be accommodating to a middle class.The middle class will most likely come with time and will have ideological and political implications. Perhaps having the Chinese government enact regulations would be not as beneficial currently as it will be in the future as it could stunt development.
This idea of the dawn of new super powers has its merits, however in my humble political studies student opinion, nations seem to be converging on a single point. We are getting to a point where no one nation can supersede any other as more powerful, but instead each nation slowly over time is becoming more comparable. If you look at rates of growth rather than the amount of (GDP) growth you will see China, Japan, India and other nations rate of growth is impressively large over the past few decades. However as nations reach the some what highest attainable point of GDP (which America currently sets the standard for) it levels out. The trickle down effect is minimized and it becomes increasingly difficult to gain any margin of growth. The overall result is a world that eventually is forced to progress (grow) at a rather universal rate.
The rest of the world isn't stuck in poverty and shit anymore, of course America is going to lose it's world podium (which it's practically already lost compared to a few decades ago). That doesn't really seem like a bad thing.
No nation will ever be as singularly dominant as nations of the past were due to the new global marketplace, improved communication, etc. We all depend on each other more than ever.
To the OP, I notice that you said you were an undergraduate at an Ivy league school here. But, it seems to me that you're heavily biased against the country you reside in, and I'm perfectly aware that you may not have said such, but it's obvious to me in the underlying parts of your posts, and your haste to disagree with anyone posting against you, that you admire China so much for their advancement. If you're so impressed, I'd suggest you leave the US and go live in China. See if the grass is greener, and ask yourself if it's everything you hoped it would be.
I agree with some of the (much) earlier posts about the USA's military, being much stronger than any other nation's, aside from nuclear warheads ending the world as we know it.
Think back to WW2...
Germany was taking over Europe, the English were putting up a fight, the USA was hesitant to get involved, and Japan took over all of southeast Asia in a VERY short period of time shortly before deciding to bomb Pearl Harbor.
Japan must have had something really good going for them if they were able to conquer southeast Asia (including China) so quickly and efficiently. But when the USA said, "Fuck this" Japan got bombed to hell and back, especially after the atomic bombs were dropped. Surrendering wasn't something the Japanese were proud of, since they'd rather Kamikaze their own planes into US ships out of spite, but there was literally nothing left of Japan, so they had no choice but to surrender.
The only reason Japan is what it is today, is because of what the US gave them back after the war. The point is, I have a lot of faith in my country and I truly do not believe the US will just sit back and lose everything that our country has worked so hard for in the past, regardless of whatever statistics you may try to present me with. The US military, with all its muscle, could potentially be used to regain economic footing in the form of invasion of other countries.
Do not presume that the US will just sit idly by, and let itself lose its position as the world's super power.
I think we should focus on why so many people on this forum seem to consider the US as "lazy and complacent". What do you honestly believe caused us to become lazy? If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that we worked extremely hard to make this country what it is, the hard work payed off, and we simply enjoyed the fruits of our labors for so long that we got used to it, and maybe that's why we don't want to work anymore.
On December 08 2010 19:56 BruceLee6783 wrote: The only reason Japan is what it is today, is because of what the US gave them back after the war. The point is, I have a lot of faith in my country and I truly do not believe the US will just sit back and lose everything that our country has worked so hard for in the past, regardless of whatever statistics you may try to present me with. The US military, with all its muscle, could potentially be used to regain economic footing in the form of invasion of other countries.
Do not presume that the US will just sit idly by, and let itself lose its position as the world's super power.
It's correct that the US isn't going to just sit idly by, but talking about invading other countries? For economic reasons? This isn't colonial times anymore. You talk about faith in your country, then make your country sound like a bunch of sore losers.
War is never good for a country's economy. If you want to look at history, look at how long conquering countries actually held on to their land, not how much land they took. Japan took a huge chunk of Asia and now they are back to their group of islands. The Mongols took another huge chunk back in their day, look where they are now. Look at Macedonia, look at Rome, look at Germany.
Then there's Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan to get a sense of what happens when the US military invades. Sure, the US military has a lot of muscle and manpower but I doubt you'd find many people willing to risk their lives for "regaining economic footing". I suggest you re-consider your "patriotic views".
If anything, cutting back military expenditure and military muscle could potentially help economic footing.
I'll take the time to explain why China will never become a superpower , it's much the same reason for Americas decline.
When Chinas wages become higher than elsewhere (actually already happening) , the companies that outsourced production from western countries to China will just move to the next cheapest place.India first then later Africa.China is at the mercy of the greed of these multinational corps like every other nation is.Start taking away manufacturing capability and the superpower will decline , hard to believe now that at one time Britain was the #1 manufacturing nation and they controlled half the globe.The decline in Americas power is directly related to the decline in American manufacturing , the same can be said of China and the impending movement of Chinas manufacturing to even cheaper economies.
On December 08 2010 20:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: I'll take the time to explain why China will never become a superpower , it's much the same reason for Americas decline.
When Chinas wages become higher than elsewhere (actually already happening) , the companies that outsourced production from western countries to China will just move to the next cheapest place.India first then later Africa.China is at the mercy of the greed of these multinational corps like every other nation is.Start taking away manufacturing capability and the superpower will decline , hard to believe now that at one time Britain was the #1 manufacturing nation and they controlled half the globe.The decline in Americas power is directly related to the decline in American manufacturing , the same can be said of China and the impending movement of Chinas manufacturing to even cheaper economies.
Yeah, if you look at the flow of economic power thats been a trend for centuries. The country that has the most untapped resources / manufacturing man power get developed by the current strong economies. From Europe to America to China to now India / Africa etc. The only caveat being the world economy isn't truly driven as much on tangible objects as in the past, but it still predominately is.
I believe the current estimate is that within 15 years China's economy will overtake America's economy, and about 10-15 years after that India will overtake China's economy. This is largely due in part to the fact that human rights aren't an issue for those countries so much as they are for the western world. There is a lot of labour abuses and such going on over there. These countries also tend to rely on Oil less than America does, and have a large invested interest in the future, rather than in the present. In the end however, regardless of which country's economy is on top, the banks will be the victors. The consequences are fairly mild in terms of every day life for your average person, but if you're looking to get into big business in the future, you might consider learning Chinese. Or in the least, learning a little bit about their economic policies and culture.
On December 08 2010 20:50 Satire wrote: These countries also tend to rely on Oil less than America does
Bulldust , all modern economies heavily rely on oil. How do you think those container ships get from the Chinese ports to the American ports to offload their cheap goods? Chinas economic 'miracle' is built on oil and coal the pollution in Chinese cities should tell you this.
Americans don't want to work. Instead, they would rather sit around and collect social security, welfare, or false disability. It is truly disheartening, as a working taxpaying American, to see people around me earning $50k/yr in disability alone, when they aren't truly even disabled.
I don't know who came up with this quote, but it looks pretty applicable to USA. Great empires generally follow these steps: bondage -> faith -> courage -> liberty -> abundance -> complacency -> apathy -> dependence -> bondage Where do you think America stands in this chart? Certainly not the first half.
- mcdonalds and other likes(pepsi, coke,etc) will exist and keep america as a major player. Maybe not as big as china, but it will stay.
- the cultural aspect is often overviewed for straight $$$. How many big chinese movies get exported here? Not a whole lot, while Hollywood movies are still over the planet.
I don't get why many people think Americans are lazy. I don't live in the US but if you truely want to see some lazy people you should come here. Americans live to work and Dutch people work to live to quote Geert Hofstede.
Anyhow the only superpower which can be compared to the US as it is now is the Netherlands from the 17th century. A country that became rich by trading and not by taking a lot of land. When they became to powerful England and France teamed up on the Netherlands and the economical damage was what made them decline. This is what my prediction is while the US still has the best army after their economy get's worse their army will suffer from this and eventually they will suffer the same fate and will lose their superiority. The question is is that really that bad? The Netherlands and other European countries are a better country to live than the US is now
On December 07 2010 12:31 Horse...falcon wrote: Also some of China's consistent growth is artificially created. There's a brand new town outside of some big city (I forgot which one) that's completely empty. Some officials there wanted to build it to show off their GDP growth numbers to their superiors but it's completely stupid.
The town is called "Ordos" in english (don't know the chinese name atm - /e turns out it is ordos in chinese as well..interesting). I think it is because of the "Ordos loop" which is nearby.
Some impressive documentary by AlJazeeraEnglish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h7V3Twb-Qk - keep in mind that this is not up to date anymore. Not sure if the town really is occupied right now (I would doubt it), but the report is older.
On December 07 2010 12:31 Horse...falcon wrote: Not saying this is a major problem but I'd like to state that official Party estimates for GDP might be overstated. Current estimates for China's GDP growth expects a continued rate of 10% growth every year. Although they've maintained it in the past, I think it will slow down. China is not replacing the US as a superpower as it's much more likely we will end up with a world with two superpowers.
There are also estimates which factor in the ecological damage. If those are applied the GDP falls to around 0% or 4% if I am not mistaken. The NY-Times has some good read on this (maybe a bit biased, but interesting nonetheless): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 (page 2 is about the green gdp).
On December 08 2010 01:28 StorkHwaiting wrote: China also has absolutely zero historical context with the Muslim world like America does. Christianity vs Islam has a lot more history and rhetoric behind it than Islam vs Chinese Socialism. The Jihadis would have a lot of trouble trying to rile up their base to get into it with China on an international scale. The worst they could say is China eats a hell of a lot of pork and they need to liberate their Uighur brothers. China also does not have anywhere near the same level of invasive and manipulative foreign machinations like the US does. I find it very strange that Swiftspear is talking like China would have much need to deal with the "Muslim threat" which is pretty much a bogeyman created by the US military to justify their insane expenditures of tax money.
This is by no means true. China has a lot of context with the Muslim world, it is just not as big as the US. But there are some Muslims in China and there are a lot of problems, and no, this isn't limited to the Uigurs. While Islamist now may have problems "communicating" hate towards China, it will become easier in time, as China becomes more and more important. The chinese workforce in Africa is already having a lot of problems/negative press and I doubt this will be different in the "center" of Islam. I am sure China does not want to deal with the "Muslim threat" as it costs and occupies America and makes business relations that much more easy, but this is an advantage China may not be able to hold forever. As time progresses China will get involved, and being involded just leads to drama and problems.
--- Regarding the whole "Americans are lazy" argument: During my time in China I was stunned by how the west doesn't know how live is in China. It is by no means a "working death factory". Personally I feel live is pretty chilled out, even in big Cities like Beijing. Chinese people, to me, seem to have a natural talent for composure. I think you kinda have to if you live there (everything just takes longer). This also applies for work. I am not saying chinese are lazy, they aren't by no means. But they aren't all little robots who work 24/7. Restaurants are usually overstaffed (at least in the eyes of a western person) and even work in factories isn't all that "inhuman" (judging from a couple of factories I have visited). That doesn't mean that there is no pressure or inhuman slave labor happing (hey foxconn, how do you do?!), it is just by no means as large as it is percieved in the west. Personally I think this is a good thing. It lowers the stress level of large parts of the population, reduces unemployment and doesn't hurt the economy too much (not sure if it is hurting it at all). Something western societies could learn from China imo.
I'm sorry rflcrx, but I don't understand what you're saying. Could you provide some actual concrete examples of major Chinese/Islam issues? Last I checked, The Battle of Talas Field was the first and only time a Chinese and Arab-Islam army met in battle.
"China has a lot of context with the Muslim world" doesn't even make sense syntactically. I don't get what you mean by that phrase. Yes, China has had extensive peaceful contact with the Muslim world, and there are a good number of Chinese Muslims (Xi'an being an example), but there is ZERO historical context or precedent for the type of animosity comparable to Christianity/Islam. If you can somehow prove how this is "by no means true," I would love to hear it. As it is, you're making wild predictions about the future with almost nothing to back it.
Further, your example of Africa has nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism. It has to do with basic economic conflict. Africans feel that Chinese are stealing their jobs.
EPT
