"China is considering investments of up to $1.5-trillion (U.S.) over five years in seven strategic industries, sources said, a plan aimed at accelerating the country’s transition from the world’s supplier of cheap goods to a leading purveyor of high-value technologies."
"“It’s one of these figures that is so big that even if it is exaggerated the actual figure is probably still big,” said Ben Simpfendorfer, an economist with Royal Bank of Scotland in Hong Kong. "
My Thoughts:
China is a nation currently in the process of industrialization - the same process the US/UK has undergone about a century ago. For the past 15-20 years, China has been playing catch up; trying to enlarge it's middle class by expanding it's industrial sector.
The Middle Nation's top 9 politburos are engineers and have chosen to pursue an appropriate approach to growing it's economy; investments into infrastructure, manufacturing, and tech sectors as well as a comprehensive grant program for academic institutions have rendered it's economy relatively unfazed by the turmoil of the American service sector.
For better or worse, America is fucked/ (edit. probably too harsh) finds itself in an unfavorable situation. According to the current trajectory of the United States, I am not alone in predicting that China will overtake America as the premier economic superpower within 20-30 years.
The question is why America can't or refuses to compete. Four reasons:
1. Disproportionate spending related to Iraq/Afghanistan War 2. Subservience to it's grossly corrupt and inefficient service sector. 3. A perpetually distracted and permanently short-sighted Congress 4. A lazy and complacent public.
Number 4 is the most important factor. I am currently an undergraduate at an Ivy-league university. The prevailing sentiment is highly discouraging. Very few students want to do real work anymore; despite the recent deflation of Wall Street, many of my peers (especially those quantitatively inclined) are aiming for positions within investment banks and consulting firms. I myself, am no exception - I look forward to a starting six-figure salary for what can kindly described as clerical work. Who am I to say no to that offer?
Over-reliance on western values will be the downfall of the United States. The life of an American is one which is lacking the impetus for real progress. Liberty is the freedom to do nothing. The pursuit of happiness is the quest for nominal wealth.
China has something to prove. America has been resting on it's laurels for far too long. When the day comes that the US dollar is no longer the global reserve currency, Americans will find themselves forced to embrace a new value:
Progress for the sake of progress. (Nietzsche anyone?)
If this fall of America was accompanied by a shorter workday, fuck it, I'll take that any day! Let some poor Chinese fellow work 10 hours a day to buy a new plasma TV. Market forces don't allow it, but it would be damned nice.
I'd love to see the military budget eliminated and instead investments in infrastructure made, but it ain't gonna happen.
Hell, I'd love to see the government disappear, but that ain't going to happen either. At this point I'll welcome pennies, though.
China has its own share of hurdles that it needs to go over first, including overpopulation, human rights issues, etc. which is delaying and will delay their rise for some time to come. But America needs to get its act together, and instead of acting like the status quo will be alright forever, we need to actually get something done. Knowing Chinese is going to be very useful in the next couple decades ;D
On December 06 2010 09:51 infinitestory wrote: China has its own share of hurdles that it needs to go over first, including overpopulation, human rights issues, etc. which is delaying and will delay their rise for some time to come. But America needs to get its act together, and instead of acting like the status quo will be alright forever, we need to actually get something done. Knowing Chinese is going to be very useful in the next couple decades ;D
Overpopulation really isn't the problem. The solution to the problem is the issue China will need to deal with in the near future. The one child policy will lead to a rapidly aging workforce. Still, the policy if more favorable compared to India's electing to disregard overpopulation as a problem.
Human rights issues in China are both overblown by the West and underestimated by the Chinese public. With the supreme goal of maintaining economic stability, China has little tolerance for unrest and often deals with it brutally. However, actual life in China doesn't feel like living under a police state.
While corruption in is China is prevalent at the local level, the upper echelons of the government are fairly unaffected. The official policy and attitudes against corruption betrays no tolerance for such behavior. Corrupt politicians usually face Draconian measures.
China is even more screwed than USA. You see all the new highrises going up in cities and talk of cashed up tourists buying louis vutton, what you don't see is the billions of peasants and under-privleged urban dwellers who have very little means to survive let alone own a home.
You don't see the gross pollution around Chinese cities and the growing deserts in China's north. You also don't see the hidden tensions in Chinese society and the vast youth unemployment.
You think China is it? think again, generations of leaders have pushed problems into the future. The country will implode before the fall of America.
Since 4 can be labeled as the cause of 1, 2, and 3 only 4 needs to be stated. In Japan, we actually have a 7.5 hour work day and our per-person GDP is higher than the states. I was born American, but I will curse the day when I have to live there again. I go back constantly for business trips and I am always appalled at how shitty the American worker has become - lazy, constantly complaining, insane unearned sense of entitlement. It is no longer if Atlas shrugs or not, the weight of the unproductive world (American world) has bloated to unbearable levels. Atlas changed countries.
I really like it how everyone seems to think, as soon as someone OTHER than the US becomes economically important, it automatically becomes the end of the world and/or the end of the US.
What do you guys think about forced military service like SK has in America? Could help build some discipline, leadership, and national pride. All good things when considering growth of a nation.
Zion: Who said end of the world? Nobody as far as I can tell. Don't troll.
The US relies heavily on its ability to borrow and move funds, if it loses its #1 standing it also loses that ability. This means American consumers would actually be forced to spend what they actually own, versus imagined money they think they will own. i.e. what the rest of the world tends to do. This will bring about a massive shift in American lifestyles which, good for the long term, but bad for the initial economic health of the country.
On December 06 2010 10:08 haduken wrote: China is even more screwed than USA. You see all the new highrises going up in cities and talk of cashed up tourists buying louis vutton, what you don't see is the billions of peasants and under-privleged urban dwellers who have very little means to survive let alone own a home.
You don't see the gross pollution around Chinese cities and the growing deserts in China's north. You also don't see the hidden tensions in Chinese society and the vast youth unemployment.
You think China is it? think again, generations of leaders have pushed problems into the future. The country will implode before the fall of America.
You forget the state China was in following the Cultural Revolution. Among those even slightly informed of the country's history, you will not find a single individual who will deny the immense progress the country has made. China is currently investing more in alternative energy than any other nation. They have recently put forth ~$500 billion for the construction of 200 modern nuclear reactors. (just google for the source).
I have little regard for your knee-jerk reactions. But thank you for contributing to the discussion a misguided view which is partially representative of the ignorant population.
The EU, with all its problems, has already surpassed the US economy years ago. Given the huge military spending, the US are doing just fine, of course they could reduce that by 90% and give their citizens a better life, but that's another topic.
China is rising, it will take a few more years, or tens of years, but they will eventually catch up to what we have now in the west. I don't expect the west to stand still for that long, we will move along towards a more post-industrial economy, while china will just have finished developing an industrial one.
Nothing surprising here, China will eventually catch up, if not overtake. Like what happened to US and UK back then. However I don't think that will be end of US, it's exaggerated because some people are scared.
Disagree w/OP. You, along with many others, really don't understand economics. Just because China will eventually surpass the US eventually in no way shape or form means the US is going to "fall". Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Just because one economy rises doesn't mean another has to fall. On the contrary, when one economy does well other economies it interacts with also do well. It's in China's best interest to have the U.S. continue to do well economically.
Take the U.K. for example. 100 years ago it was the worlds leading power and now America is ahead of it by a long shot. But I think England is doing just fine. It's not like they are living in poverty.
China has 5 times as many people as the U.S. 5 times. If anything they should already be ahead of us, with that many people. We should all be happy that China is growing because that only means that literally millions of people will be pulled out of poverty
On December 06 2010 10:26 Ganondorf wrote: The EU, with all its problems, has already surpassed the US economy years ago. Given the huge military spending, the US are doing just fine, of course they could reduce that by 90% and give their citizens a better life, but that's another topic.
China is rising, it will take a few more years, or tens of years, but they will eventually catch up to what we have now in the west. I don't expect the west to stand still for that long, we will move along towards a more post-industrial economy, while china will just have finished developing an industrial one.
America is already post-industrial. America's brand of post-industrial economy is the main reason why it is failing.
Look at Japan. Technically, they are post-industrial in the sense that they rely heavily on their hi-tech sector. But technically, that is still REAL industry which produces real products and contributes to technological advancement.
America is more interested in the production of transient and worthless financial derivatives - the image of an image of an image of a real thing.
Hearing from my uncle who lived in China the past 6 years about the progress they have made is just incredible.
I'm just going to focus on public transport here because it's really interesting but you can apply the differences in progress to almost any sector.
When he first moved there it took him 2 hours to get to work by car. Around 4 years ago the government built 10 new subways with a train that can get him from source to destination in 19 minutes, 13 direct with no stops. 350kmh.
Meanwhile in Australia the government has spent millions on dollars on 22 different feasability reports over the last ~20 years on a train line from Canberra to Sydney that would end up using ancient technology by today's standards and go 140kmh max. Nothing has happened. Where I live they have talked about electrifying the train lines for 12 years so we can be put on the metro train service instead of country. Again nothing has happened.
Victoria just got a new ticketing system that cost $1.3 billion AUD designed by some random American company. It barely works, zones are broken and it is more inconvienient than the old system. A West Australian company designed the Octopus system that is used in Hong Kong. If anyone has experienced how straightforward it is to use Octopus you will know that it is how all ticketing systems should work. Instead our retarded state government goes overseas to a company that bought some minister a nice dinner. Bam, there goes $1.3 billion of the taxpayers money. At least we get to suffer the piece of shit that is Myki as a reward. $1.3 billion dollars could have been invested and provided free public transport to every Victorian for the next 24 years.
I don't necessarily agree with just having a single party controlling everything but in the case of China - it just damn works. Things just get done, there is no screwing around. The most frustrating aspect of a bipartisan system is the pointless arguing and delaying over things obviously for the common good of everyone.
I was also interested to learn that the demand for workers is so high in China that pay is increasing by 8-10% every year which is huge. One of the largest manufacturing companies in China employs over a million people. They have their own hospitals (healthy employees work better) and schools (smart people right into a job makes sense) and run a paperfree work environment.
Also on overpopulation - China is the only country in the world (that I know of, correct me if I am wrong) that has tried to do anything drastic about it with the one child policy. The side effects of the policy are starting to show with an aging population and emerging social problems as a result of the "one" children growing up being spoiled by their parents who can now afford luxury items. A lot of the kids are now in their twenties and don't want to work in factories, they want a desk job. This also contributes to the lack of "fresh" factory workers. Time will tell how that one pans out.
India will be the largest country population wise by 2050 and the world will have around 10 billion people. The current population is around 6 billion. Overpopulation is going to be a massive problem in the coming decades.
Meanwhile I can't say much good has come from America since around the Vietnam war. Like Australia it is a country stuck in politics and fear mongering with no one willing to acknowledge or do anything about the problems it's citizens face. At least we have lots of raw materials that China likes buying from us in Australia.
Overall, China impresses me. I like living in Australia but slow progress annoys me.
On December 06 2010 10:08 haduken wrote: China is even more screwed than USA. You see all the new highrises going up in cities and talk of cashed up tourists buying louis vutton, what you don't see is the billions of peasants and under-privleged urban dwellers who have very little means to survive let alone own a home.
You don't see the gross pollution around Chinese cities and the growing deserts in China's north. You also don't see the hidden tensions in Chinese society and the vast youth unemployment.
You think China is it? think again, generations of leaders have pushed problems into the future. The country will implode before the fall of America.
You forget the state China was in following the Cultural Revolution. Among those even slightly informed of the country's history, you will not find a single individual who will deny the immense progress the country has made. China is currently investing more in alternative energy than any other nation. They have recently put forth ~$500 billion for the construction of 200 modern nuclear reactors. (just google for the source).
I have little regard for your knee-jerk reactions. But thank you for contributing to the discussion a misguided view which is partially representative of the ignorant population.
That's very true, and if their recent claims of having developed a fusion reactor are true, they're light years ahead of us on energy. However, china has a growing debt, and it also has a looming housing bubble. Not to mention, since china has started throwing its weight around, businesses have started looking for greener pastures (korea, india, brazil, etc). While they're still on the up and up, and will remain so for probably the next 10 years, China has serious problems that need to be addressed if it expects to remain a stable state.
Hearing from my uncle who lived in China the past 6 years about the progress they have made is just incredible.
I'm just going to focus on public transport here because it's really interesting but you can apply the differences in progress to almost any sector.
When he first moved there it took him 2 hours to get to work by car. Around 4 years ago the government built 10 new subways with a train that can get him from source to destination in 19 minutes, 13 direct with no stops. 350kmh.
Meanwhile in Australia the government has spent millions on dollars on 22 different feasability reports over the last ~20 years on a train line from Canberra to Sydney that would end up using ancient technology by today's standards and go 140kmh max. Nothing has happened. Where I live they have talked about electrifying the train lines for 12 years so we can be put on the metro train service instead of country. Again nothing has happened.
Victoria just got a new ticketing system that cost $1.3 billion AUD designed by some random American company. It barely works, zones are broken and it is more inconvienient than the old system. A West Australian company designed the Octopus system that is used in Hong Kong. If anyone has experienced how straightforward it is to use Octopus you will know that it is how all ticketing systems should work. Instead our retarded state government goes overseas to a company that bought some minister a nice dinner. Bam, there goes $1.3 billion of the taxpayers money. At least we get to suffer the piece of shit that is Myki as a reward. $1.3 billion dollars could have been invested and provided free public transport to every Victorian for the next 24 years.
I don't necessarily agree with just having a single party controlling everything but in the case of China - it just damn works. Things just get done, there is no screwing around. The most frustrating aspect of a bipartisan system is the pointless arguing and delaying over things obviously for the common good of everyone.
I was also interested to learn that the demand for workers is so high in China that pay is increasing by 8-10% every year which is huge. One of the largest manufacturing companies in China employs over a million people. They have their own hospitals (healthy employees work better) and schools (smart people right into a job makes sense) and run a paperfree work environment.
Also on overpopulation - China is the only country in the world (that I know of, correct me if I am wrong) that has tried to do anything drastic about it with the one child policy. The side effects of the policy are starting to show with an aging population and emerging social problems as a result of the "one" children growing up being spoiled by their parents who can now afford luxury items. A lot of the kids are now in their twenties and don't want to work in factories, they want a desk job. This also contributes to the lack of "fresh" factory workers. Time will tell how that one pans out.
India will be the largest country population wise by 2050 and the world will have around 10 billion people. The current population is around 6 billion. Overpopulation is going to be a massive problem in the coming decades.
Meanwhile I can't say much good has come from America since around the Vietnam war. Like Australia it is a country stuck in politics and fear mongering with no one willing to acknowledge or do anything about the problems it's citizens face. At least we have lots of raw materials that China likes buying from us in Australia.
Overall, China impresses me. I like living in Australia but slow progress annoys me.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Australia is nice but I swear some stuff is backwards (like public transport as you mentioned and internet).
On December 06 2010 10:08 haduken wrote: China is even more screwed than USA. You see all the new highrises going up in cities and talk of cashed up tourists buying louis vutton, what you don't see is the billions of peasants and under-privleged urban dwellers who have very little means to survive let alone own a home.
You don't see the gross pollution around Chinese cities and the growing deserts in China's north. You also don't see the hidden tensions in Chinese society and the vast youth unemployment.
You think China is it? think again, generations of leaders have pushed problems into the future. The country will implode before the fall of America.
You forget the state China was in following the Cultural Revolution. Among those even slightly informed of the country's history, you will not find a single individual who will deny the immense progress the country has made. China is currently investing more in alternative energy than any other nation. They have recently put forth ~$500 billion for the construction of 200 modern nuclear reactors. (just google for the source).
I have little regard for your knee-jerk reactions. But thank you for contributing to the discussion a misguided view which is partially representative of the ignorant population.
That's very true, and if their recent claims of having developed a fusion reactor are true, they're light years ahead of us on energy. However, china has a growing debt, and it also has a looming housing bubble. Not to mention, since china has started throwing its weight around, businesses have started looking for greener pastures (korea, india, brazil, etc). While they're still on the up and up, and will remain so for probably the next 10 years, China has serious problems that need to be addressed if it expects to remain a stable state.
Scientifically we don't know how to do fusion yet. So no, they aren't building fusion plants. The day we can do fusion is the day we no longer have to worry about energy
They are building fission plants, which the US has too. Fission plants are more efficient and environment friendly than some other forms of energy, but only if no accidents happen.
I wouldn't be so quick to crown the rise of China just yet, they have not proved immune to the problems associated with growth and they certainly lacking in some critical areas (namely education reform).
On December 06 2010 10:39 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: Scientifically we don't know how to do fusion yet. So no, they aren't building fusion plants. The day we can do fusion is the day we no longer have to worry about energy
More like the day that fusion comes into play, everyone will have to worry about energy.
On December 06 2010 10:29 happyness wrote: Disagree w/OP. You, along with many others, really don't understand economics. Just because China will eventually surpass the US eventually in no way shape or form means the US is going to "fall". Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Just because one economy rises doesn't mean another has to fall. On the contrary, when one economy does well other economies it interacts with also do well. It's in China's best interest to have the U.S. continue to do well economically.
Take the U.K. for example. 100 years ago it was the worlds leading power and now America is ahead of it by a long shot. But I think England is doing just fine. It's not like they are living in poverty.
China has 5 times as many people as the U.S. 5 times. If anything they should already be ahead of us, with that many people. We should all be happy that China is growing because that only means that literally millions of people will be pulled out of poverty
Fall as a world power, which Britain has. We honour them highly out of respect and tradition, not because of their power.
The reason over population is not a problem is that we have enough money and resources to feed them. We simply need the motivation and distribution set up to get the food to the poor. Either that, or the poor simply die off, and it's still no problem to the country. It doesn't affect China at all whether they live or die. It is simply morally wrong to let people starve.
There's one thing that many people do not realize about China's economic growth. The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. This is one fundamental problem that China has to overcome.
On December 06 2010 10:29 happyness wrote: Disagree w/OP. You, along with many others, really don't understand economics. Just because China will eventually surpass the US eventually in no way shape or form means the US is going to "fall". Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Just because one economy rises doesn't mean another has to fall. On the contrary, when one economy does well other economies it interacts with also do well. It's in China's best interest to have the U.S. continue to do well economically.
Take the U.K. for example. 100 years ago it was the worlds leading power and now America is ahead of it by a long shot. But I think England is doing just fine. It's not like they are living in poverty.
China has 5 times as many people as the U.S. 5 times. If anything they should already be ahead of us, with that many people. We should all be happy that China is growing because that only means that literally millions of people will be pulled out of poverty
I understand economics perfectly well. Well enough to say that during a global recession, economics is worse than zero-sum - it is negative sum.
Of course it is in China's best interest for America to do well. Technically it is in everyone's best interest for everyone else to do well. The real issue is that China is less dependent on America than vice-versa. Why is it that China is among the least affected by the failure of America's financial sector?
When I allude to the Fall of America I'm speaking in relative terms - I'm not speaking about it's collapse.
I am in agreement that China's rise is a good thing. No human being deserves the burden of poverty. China is not a threat, nor should it be viewed as a threat. If anything, it's a nation governed by certain sensibilities American should learn from.
On December 06 2010 10:29 happyness wrote: Disagree w/OP. You, along with many others, really don't understand economics. Just because China will eventually surpass the US eventually in no way shape or form means the US is going to "fall". Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Just because one economy rises doesn't mean another has to fall. On the contrary, when one economy does well other economies it interacts with also do well. It's in China's best interest to have the U.S. continue to do well economically.
Take the U.K. for example. 100 years ago it was the worlds leading power and now America is ahead of it by a long shot. But I think England is doing just fine. It's not like they are living in poverty.
China has 5 times as many people as the U.S. 5 times. If anything they should already be ahead of us, with that many people. We should all be happy that China is growing because that only means that literally millions of people will be pulled out of poverty
Fall as a world power, which Britain has. We honour them highly out of respect and tradition, not because of their power.
My point was that even though U.K. isn't a world power, it's still a good place to live and the people there have as high a standard of living as the U.S. The OP said america is fucked, which really isn't the case at all.
Japan was also supposed to be the downfall of America in the 80's their economy soared and the doom of America was on the horizon.
America's business model is that of long term success through innovation. China is growing fast because they are cutting a few corners to show short term growth. Let's see where they are in 30 years.
If the US dollar crumbles, the dept china has purchased also devalues into nothing, wasting their money... China already knows they will NEVER get any money back from the USA, what they purchased is a cost to keep the USA alive and kicking.
When China purchases trillions of dollars of US dept only to see it evaporate, they lose a lot of their spending power... since well purchased dept is an asset, which makes China's economy look better than it actually is.
(Basically every dollar China has purchased in US dept shows up as a purchased asset, and then is subsequently written off as a bad dept as time goes on, this is allowed as the USA buys so much stuff that it is a major factor in the Chinease economy.)
Hell, even hypothetically, china starts to produce high tech expensive goods... they still need consumers, and those consumers are the USA. Chine NEEDS the USA. Without the USA they lose a TONNE of customers and as such a TONNE of income.
People seem to miss this point when talking about China surpassing the USA. Sure China may end up with an overall Economy larger than the USA, but China will forever continue to spend money to keep the USA buying things from China... the USA will never fall, simply because they are tied to too many economies (Canada, China, EU, etc...).
Everyone pays to keep the USA buying, its just what we do. This is why the American dollar is not worth absolutely nothing with trillions of dollars in dept... simply because other countries are keeping the US dollar artificially inflated.
- - - -
As well, the USA will never lose its power for two major reasons:
1) Buying power... the amount of stuff the USA buys in a year is staggering, this means people pay to keep the beast buying. The USA will always be a beast with a hunger and people will keep feeding it.
2) Military power... even in this day and age, the USA has military personnel in most countries in the world, in some countries the American soldiers based there outnumber the countries own military. Even beyond that, the technology the American military brings to bear out matches everyone else in the world...
To put this into perspective, the American airforce can kill every single airforce of all other countries combined alone, simply because of the number of pilots and how advanced their planes are compared to those in other countries.
This is also true of naval warfare and armored warfare, and missile warfare...
The only point in which the US military cannot kill every other military in the world is on foot, with soldiers, where their numbers pale in comparison to those in other countries, the only problem is when you have air and sea superiority it makes land superiority worth MUCH MUCH MUCH less.
Where am I going with this? The USA will never LET its self fall from grace... when a country is in desperation it does desperate things... now take a country that can take over the whole world with its military and then take the money the country has... it will lash out and force people to pay them, even if that means they have to conquer countries to do so.
Do not kid your self... if the USA was to fall (even though it never will), that would most likely be the catalyst to WW3... and well... no one wants to see how that ends.
On December 06 2010 10:39 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: Scientifically we don't know how to do fusion yet. So no, they aren't building fusion plants. The day we can do fusion is the day we no longer have to worry about energy
More like the day that fusion comes into play, everyone will have to worry about energy.
Are you predicting that it would be more dangerous than current energy sources? Maybe it would be, but by then we'll have much more robust and advanced engineering and less risk of accidents. With fusion technology we'd be able to do anything we wanted energy wise with no risk of running out.
I always start to type an informed response to OPs like this but then rage-delete it because I will likely get banned when I tell you like it is or when I say something offensive to the American sheep-brain.
Basically if you have no background in Chinese history, culture, or language you cannot begin to understand anything about this place much less "discuss" these matters in comparison with the United States and its current situation.
I do love when kids from the suburbs start bleat-parroting about "human-rights". As if the US was some bastion of decency and good-will with Guantanamo, FEMA, and the Patriot Act, to name a few, as mere exceptions to the otherwise blemish-free humanitarianism.
China has too many people to not be an economic super power. India will get there as well. But just because china becomes a larger economy does not mean the US economy wont be massive, and its not like the US will implode the second its no longer the worlds largest economy. China isnt going to just immediatly turn around and try to fuck the US in every possible way.
I think there is to much doom and gloom in these scenerios, plenty of other countries survive without being the worlds economic super power. (the US will too! life in the US likely wont face a notable change just because the chinese economy surpasses the US)
The Chinese and US economy are so connected even now, I doubt 30 years from now it will be much different.
On December 06 2010 10:39 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: Scientifically we don't know how to do fusion yet. So no, they aren't building fusion plants. The day we can do fusion is the day we no longer have to worry about energy
More like the day that fusion comes into play, everyone will have to worry about energy.
Are you predicting that it would be more dangerous than current energy sources? Maybe it would be, but by then we'll have much more robust and advanced engineering and less risk of accidents. With fusion technology we'd be able to do anything we wanted energy wise with no risk of running out.
I am saying the concept of scarcity is a critical component of how the world works right now. Given how globalization has marginalized the don't-have-it countries already, what do you think a new, (near-)infinite energy source in the hands of let's just say a corporation will do?
If you want a better idea, think prescription drugs.
On December 06 2010 10:44 Enervate wrote: There's one thing that many people do not realize about China's economic growth. The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. This is one fundamental problem that China has to overcome.
Poor are doing just fine. If the poor were doing worse off, they would be riots in the streets. There is some amount of injustice and inflation rates are bad but it's like that everywhere and probably more so in the US. The pyramid wealth distribution is developing like it did in the US about a century ago.
Because of the global downturn, the economy needs to establish a new base, and that means repricing a lot of assets. The sooner the repricing happens the sooner the people can get on with economic growth. As usual, politics are getting in the way and thus the bailouts.
US might be in a UK post-WW-II-style malaise. The EU will be in a similar position. Japan as well. But it's nothing to really debate. The demographics and economic development trajectories are readily apparent.
On December 06 2010 10:48 Redunzl wrote: I always start to type an informed response to OPs like this but then rage-delete it because I will likely get banned if I tell you like it is.
Basically if you have no background in Chinese history, culture, or language you cannot begin to understand anything about this place much less "discuss" these matters in comparison with the United States and its current situation.
I do love when kids from the suburbs start bleat-parroting about "human-rights". As if the US was some bastion of decency and good-will with Guantanamo, FEMA, and the Patriot Act, to name a few, as mere exceptions to the otherwise blemish-free humanitarianism.
may be true but not really the topic here i guess...
to the OP:
maybe china will overtake america...who knows... and i'm absolutely not in the position to speculate about that, since my knowledge in this specific topic is not really that big... but what i know is, that with the process of industrialization in pretty much every country of europe (especially the uk, france and germany) back then aswell as in america, there was some sort of revolution and civil unrests due to a standard, which was not really in favor of the people who were doing the actual work...so i guess sooner or later this will also be same case for china... and since the proportions are related to the us so much bigger i guess the impact of those most likely scenarios will also be much bigger and much more hurtful and end in results which will bring down the rise of china in one way or another...
Hmmm, the most populous nation in the world with a history of economic domination aside from the past few centuries is becoming a world power? Shocking. After all, it's totally reasonable for Americans to continue to out-earn Chinese people 7:1 forever.
I don't really see how America's decline somehow proves Nietzsche's views on the decline of the west. Heck, most of those have been overhyped. I don't really think Nietzsche was too concerned with GPD in regards to a nations progress. While no doubt there are cultural faults which Nietzsche is perfectly correct on, the whole 'liberalism is the death of mankind' stuff is too easy to misrepresent to simple brutal nationalism.
In the end I believe that cultural change is subservient to the greater economic and political forces. In the end culture, and the subject aren't really that important. I know this is somewhat couner intuitive, but I've never been convinced by any argument to contrary. All this talk of laziness, 'cultural decline' ect. is largely sociological fluff.
In the end the economics will be the deciding factor. Marx might have been wrong about alot, but he understood something that cultural elitists like Nietzsche didn't, the value of bread. There are million different forces at work in a society, while American exceptionalism will play a role in it's decline, it also played a role in it's rise. The situation is complex, and the OPs predictions are probably correct, but there's more to America's problems than it's exceptionalism.
On December 06 2010 10:46 Aurdon wrote: Japan was also supposed to be the downfall of America in the 80's their economy soared and the doom of America was on the horizon.
America's business model is that of long term success through innovation. China is growing fast because they are cutting a few corners to show short term growth. Let's see where they are in 30 years.
Japan is limited by land and resources. They have done remarkable well with what they have. As for innovation...have you any idea now difficult it is to obtain research grants in the US? Innovation is not an innate property of the American people. It is a concept which needs support and encouragement, neither of which the US is willing to provide given the fact that its money is tied up elsewhere. Free-market is not enough, I can make 10 times the salary of an engineer as a banker.
On December 06 2010 10:47 Insanious wrote: If the US dollar crumbles, the dept china has purchased also devalues into nothing, wasting their money... China already knows they will NEVER get any money back from the USA, what they purchased is a cost to keep the USA alive and kicking.
When China purchases trillions of dollars of US dept only to see it evaporate, they lose a lot of their spending power... since well purchased dept is an asset, which makes China's economy look better than it actually is.
(Basically every dollar China has purchased in US dept shows up as a purchased asset, and then is subsequently written off as a bad dept as time goes on, this is allowed as the USA buys so much stuff that it is a major factor in the Chinease economy.)
Hell, even hypothetically, china starts to produce high tech expensive goods... they still need consumers, and those consumers are the USA. Chine NEEDS the USA. Without the USA they lose a TONNE of customers and as such a TONNE of income.
People seem to miss this point when talking about China surpassing the USA. Sure China may end up with an overall Economy larger than the USA, but China will forever continue to spend money to keep the USA buying things from China... the USA will never fall, simply because they are tied to too many economies (Canada, China, EU, etc...).
Everyone pays to keep the USA buying, its just what we do. This is why the American dollar is not worth absolutely nothing with trillions of dollars in dept... simply because other countries are keeping the US dollar artificially inflated.
- - - -
As well, the USA will never lose its power for two major reasons:
1) Buying power... the amount of stuff the USA buys in a year is staggering, this means people pay to keep the beast buying. The USA will always be a beast with a hunger and people will keep feeding it.
2) Military power... even in this day and age, the USA has military personnel in most countries in the world, in some countries the American soldiers based there outnumber the countries own military. Even beyond that, the technology the American military brings to bear out matches everyone else in the world...
To put this into perspective, the American airforce can kill every single airforce of all other countries combined alone, simply because of the number of pilots and how advanced their planes are compared to those in other countries.
This is also true of naval warfare and armored warfare, and missile warfare...
The only point in which the US military cannot kill every other military in the world is on foot, with soldiers, where their numbers pale in comparison to those in other countries, the only problem is when you have air and sea superiority it makes land superiority worth MUCH MUCH MUCH less.
Where am I going with this? The USA will never LET its self fall from grace... when a country is in desperation it does desperate things... now take a country that can take over the whole world with its military and then take the money the country has... it will lash out and force people to pay them, even if that means they have to conquer countries to do so.
Do not kid your self... if the USA was to fall (even though it never will), that would most likely be the catalyst to WW3... and well... no one wants to see how that ends.
First point. The US dollar IS is danger of losing it's status as the world's reserve currency. The fact that America has never defaulted on its debt will mean nothing if it continues to devalue the dollar.
Second point. I have no idea where you are going with this military nonsense. Both nations understand that war will never break out between them. Consequently, the idea of the US leveraging any military threat is preposterous. Never mind the fact that it is already stretched too thin.
Sigh... how do you people get off with writing tripe like "don't kid yourself". It's honestly staggering.
I would be more afraid that China currently own 10% of USA's dept (about 170 billion) right this second, and if they suddenly stop covering they can send your ecnomy into a tail spin and you'll be in another depression
On December 06 2010 10:44 Consolidate wrote: Of course it is in China's best interest for America to do well. Technically it is in everyone's best interest for everyone else to do well. The real issue is that China is less dependent on America than vice-versa. Why is it that China is among the least affected by the failure of America's financial sector?
Because of two things...
1) The Chinese artificially devaluate their own dollar, as such during a recession they can stop doing this and will keep their dollar at the same value. As such, this will simply result in the gaining money as they will not have to spend money to create new currency to devaluate the Yuan.
2) The Chinease purchased American dept, and as it currently stands, purchasing dept from someone else is purchasing an asset, as someone has to pay off the dept. This means that the Chinease just got a HUGE boost to the value of their country (well as a whole, who ever purchased the dept (the banks) get a huge boost which reflects on China as a whole). simply because the value of the dept is higher than the value of the dollars they spent to purchase it.
These two things means that: The Chinease dollar didn't change in value compared to anyone else, and they look a lot better as they purchased trillions of dollars in dept (which even at a 1% interest rate is worth a STUPIDLY large amount of money...)
Not to mention, even during the recession consumers did not spend that much less than they normally do, simply because China was keeping their dollar valued higher (by buying the dept). This means that China still gets payed because American consumers are still buying things.
- - - -
Sorry, but just as a side note... here's the 2008 recession in a nut shell
1) Banks bought a tonne of securities made up of parts of mortgages (from USA) 2) People in USE defaulted on mortgages 3) Securities SEVERELY devalued 4) Banks suddenly lost a TONNE of money, which they lend out 90%+ of the money they get in (they only need ~10% cash in their vaults in most countries). Now like 70% of the money they lended out was worth nothing 5) Banks were asking the other banks to pay them back, even though no one had money, so a round of defaulting on loans happend (Bank A let to bank B, Bank B lent to Bank C, Bank C lent to Bank D, etc... Bank D cant pay Bank C, Bank C cant pay Bank B because of C, etc, etc...) 6) Banks died 7) With banks dead, no one started lending 8) Businesses could not get funds 9) Businesses started to default on purchases 10) Businesses started to cut costs to pay back creditors 11) People got laid off
This is basically what happened (very simplified).
The only problem, is in the USA, what happened, is some where around part 5, the USA started to give money to Banks, and other countries (like China, Canada, UK, etc...) purchased the Dept the USA brought on to pay their banks to keep them alive.
This means unlike in Ireland and Iceland, the US dollar did not devaluate as much as it should have.
So less people get laid off in USA, less businesses close, and this means people keep borrowing and lending, and paying companies (this is why a lot of companies are not better off than they ever were...) and this is why China can afford to buy trillions of dollars of dept they will never get repayed for... simply because Americans buy so much stuff and just keep on paying China.
On December 06 2010 10:59 kataa wrote: I don't really see how America's decline somehow proves Nietzsche's views on the decline of the west. Heck, most of those have been overhyped. I don't really think Nietzsche was too concerned with GPD in regards to a nations progress. While no doubt there are cultural faults which Nietzsche is perfectly correct on, the whole 'liberalism is the death of mankind' stuff is too easy to misrepresent to simple brutal nationalism.
In the end I believe that cultural change is subservient to the greater economic and political forces. In the end culture, and the subject aren't really that important. I know this is somewhat couner intuitive, but I've never been convinced by any argument to contrary. All this talk of laziness, 'cultural decline' ect. is largely sociological fluff.
In the end the economics will be the deciding factor. Marx might have been wrong about alot, but he understood something that cultural elitists like Nietzsche didn't, the value of bread. There are million different forces at work in a society, while American exceptionalism will play a role in it's decline, it also played a role in it's rise. The situation is complex, and the OPs predictions are probably correct, but there's more to America's problems than it's exceptionalism.
The Nietzsche aside was just a cute reference to the adoption of 'new values'.
The Nietzsche aside was just a cute reference to the adoption of 'new values'.
Yes, but new values in this case is the West's obsession with liberal humanism, which (according to him) ultimately leads to nihilism. Thus you end up with a society that supposedly, looks an awful lot like your feelings towards your fellow Ivy leagues students (or my fellow students for that matter).
The quote was spot on imo, I just like to warn people off going down that road of thought, as I don't think there's anything productive down it.
The problem with capitalism, principally, is that it's so short-sighted. Don't tell me that GM never saw the crash coming, what with gas prices skyrocketing as they built gas-guzzling SUVs. It's the prioritization of quarterly profits over long-term success that is deadly to American business (and business everywhere else in the world that follows the American model).
Similarly, 4-year political terms also prioritize short-term gains over long-term strategy. It's asinine.
China has been growing more powerful because they look long-term. They can't hold a stick to the US militarily... yet. But despite the failings of the USA, I still prefer corrupt "freedom" over hive-mind, environmentally careless expansionism any day.
Get a piece of land in the mountains and learn to live as self-sufficiently as possible, kiddos.
On December 06 2010 10:29 happyness wrote: Disagree w/OP. You, along with many others, really don't understand economics. Just because China will eventually surpass the US eventually in no way shape or form means the US is going to "fall". Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Just because one economy rises doesn't mean another has to fall. On the contrary, when one economy does well other economies it interacts with also do well. It's in China's best interest to have the U.S. continue to do well economically.
Take the U.K. for example. 100 years ago it was the worlds leading power and now America is ahead of it by a long shot. But I think England is doing just fine. It's not like they are living in poverty.
China has 5 times as many people as the U.S. 5 times. If anything they should already be ahead of us, with that many people. We should all be happy that China is growing because that only means that literally millions of people will be pulled out of poverty
I understand economics perfectly well. Well enough to say that during a global recession, economics is worse than zero-sum - it is negative sum.
Of course it is in China's best interest for America to do well. Technically it is in everyone's best interest for everyone else to do well. The real issue is that China is less dependent on America than vice-versa. Why is it that China is among the least affected by the failure of America's financial sector?
When I allude to the Fall of America I'm speaking in relative terms - I'm not speaking about it's collapse.
Ok. From the OP it sounded like you were saying America is screwed because China's rising.
I am in agreement that China's rise is a good thing. No human being deserves the burden of poverty. China is not a threat, nor should it be viewed as a threat. If anything, it's a nation governed by certain sensibilities American should learn from.
China has risen because of adapting U.S. sensibilities (i.e. free market). As I said, China has so many more people than the U.S. they should surpass the U.S. eventually.
About the original question, the U.S. for the most part shouldn't follow china's way of doing things. It may be true that we have a lazy and complacent public. But I think that is often exaggerated. Americans still work more than many other industrialized nations and do effective work.
But my question to you is: what exactly are you suggesting should be done about this? Should the government get involved, like the chinese govt does with their people? Because I would definately say no to that. I believe that to change a nation culturally it has to come from the individuals and not through government force.
One thing I feel the U.S. should adapt from china though is their lack of debt. The financial crisis was caused by an inflated market due to creditors and such. Again it has to be a cultural change that I'm sure will happen. At the very least the U.S. govt should get rid of the national debt, but I don't think thats going to happen.
On December 06 2010 10:46 Aurdon wrote: Japan was also supposed to be the downfall of America in the 80's their economy soared and the doom of America was on the horizon.
America's business model is that of long term success through innovation. China is growing fast because they are cutting a few corners to show short term growth. Let's see where they are in 30 years.
Japan is limited by land and resources. They have done remarkable well with what they have. As for innovation...have you any idea now difficult it is to obtain research grants in the US? Innovation is not an innate property of the American people. It is a concept which needs support and encouragement, neither of which the US is willing to provide given the fact that its money is tied up elsewhere. Free-market is not enough, I can make 10 times the salary of an engineer as a banker.
On December 06 2010 10:47 Insanious wrote: If the US dollar crumbles, the dept china has purchased also devalues into nothing, wasting their money... China already knows they will NEVER get any money back from the USA, what they purchased is a cost to keep the USA alive and kicking.
When China purchases trillions of dollars of US dept only to see it evaporate, they lose a lot of their spending power... since well purchased dept is an asset, which makes China's economy look better than it actually is.
(Basically every dollar China has purchased in US dept shows up as a purchased asset, and then is subsequently written off as a bad dept as time goes on, this is allowed as the USA buys so much stuff that it is a major factor in the Chinease economy.)
Hell, even hypothetically, china starts to produce high tech expensive goods... they still need consumers, and those consumers are the USA. Chine NEEDS the USA. Without the USA they lose a TONNE of customers and as such a TONNE of income.
People seem to miss this point when talking about China surpassing the USA. Sure China may end up with an overall Economy larger than the USA, but China will forever continue to spend money to keep the USA buying things from China... the USA will never fall, simply because they are tied to too many economies (Canada, China, EU, etc...).
Everyone pays to keep the USA buying, its just what we do. This is why the American dollar is not worth absolutely nothing with trillions of dollars in dept... simply because other countries are keeping the US dollar artificially inflated.
- - - -
As well, the USA will never lose its power for two major reasons:
1) Buying power... the amount of stuff the USA buys in a year is staggering, this means people pay to keep the beast buying. The USA will always be a beast with a hunger and people will keep feeding it.
2) Military power... even in this day and age, the USA has military personnel in most countries in the world, in some countries the American soldiers based there outnumber the countries own military. Even beyond that, the technology the American military brings to bear out matches everyone else in the world...
To put this into perspective, the American airforce can kill every single airforce of all other countries combined alone, simply because of the number of pilots and how advanced their planes are compared to those in other countries.
This is also true of naval warfare and armored warfare, and missile warfare...
The only point in which the US military cannot kill every other military in the world is on foot, with soldiers, where their numbers pale in comparison to those in other countries, the only problem is when you have air and sea superiority it makes land superiority worth MUCH MUCH MUCH less.
Where am I going with this? The USA will never LET its self fall from grace... when a country is in desperation it does desperate things... now take a country that can take over the whole world with its military and then take the money the country has... it will lash out and force people to pay them, even if that means they have to conquer countries to do so.
Do not kid your self... if the USA was to fall (even though it never will), that would most likely be the catalyst to WW3... and well... no one wants to see how that ends.
First point. The US dollar IS is danger of losing it's status as the world's reserve currency. The fact that America has never defaulted on its debt will mean nothing if it continues to devalue the dollar.
Second point. I have no idea where you are going with this military nonsense. Both nations understand that war will never break out between them. Consequently, the idea of the US leveraging any military threat is preposterous. Never mind the fact that it is already stretched too thin.
Sigh... how do you people get off with writing tripe like "don't kid yourself". It's honestly staggering.
1) Yes the Chinease have suggested that they will start using the Yuan instead of USD for international exchange, but this could just be talk, and I think it is... China depends too much on the US economy doing very well to be able to do something that will so significantly hurt the USD.
As well, the USD isn't really falling, its being propped up... look at the exchanged rates for the USD for the last like year and a half. They have been hovering at the same value despite the US taking on more and more dept... simply because other countries are keeping the value of the USD high, similar to how China keeps the value of the Yuan low.
If they didn't do this... the USD would plummet into being worth nothing, and the Yuan would skyrocket into being worth so much companies would move their factories out of China (and no, I'm not saying all factories, but many companies would as it would then be cheaper to manufacture goods else where...)
China needs the USD being at a reasonable rate right now simply due to the amount of trade that is being done, and the amount of American Companies that operate their manufacturing in China.
- - - -
The military point was more towards the people that think the USA will suddenly fall into having the worst economy ever. If that ever happens, the USA will use its military power to become a super power again... if you have a country with a military that is stronger than everyone elses combined and then make those people so poor they cannot live a decent life... terrible things will happen.
This will never happen, but just close your eyes and think for a second, take the USA, with its huge military... and now make it so that it has an economy similar to that of Africa (yes i know Africa is not a country its a continent but the countries there are so poor that picking one would make my example even more stupid).
Do you really think they will go "oh mans, we're poor now..." or will they go "well lets see we can be poor, or we can take over the world..."
China had a rough 150 years from 1800 to independence in 1949. You're talking opium wars to being sliced up by every imperialistic power to being ripped apart by Japan up until the very end of WWII. Even then they have to pick up the pieces and they go down again after the The Great Leap Forward. It's really only been in the last 50 years that they've been able to successfully grow and really invest in themselves.
Before 1800, China exists as a huge economic force, and has a very large trade surplus with Europe. The West as we know it only rises on the back of imperial conquest and control of other countries' resources and surges ahead of the rest of the world in the modern era.
What is happening now is just China's massive resurgence back to the top of the world, again with a huge trade surplus with the US especially and this time, its own people and resources behind it. The supposed weakness of the yuan is only the result of that massive trade influx that I mentioned: China exports a massive amount to western countries (especially the US) because its cheaper and that results in the dollar appreciating towards the yuan - a cycle which only results modern companies unable to keep up with their chinese counterparts.
US growth is keeping pace with the rest of the world; you're just watching China's 50 year meteoric progression back from rock bottom.
On December 06 2010 10:08 haduken wrote: China is even more screwed than USA. You see all the new highrises going up in cities and talk of cashed up tourists buying louis vutton, what you don't see is the billions of peasants and under-privleged urban dwellers who have very little means to survive let alone own a home.
You don't see the gross pollution around Chinese cities and the growing deserts in China's north. You also don't see the hidden tensions in Chinese society and the vast youth unemployment.
You think China is it? think again, generations of leaders have pushed problems into the future. The country will implode before the fall of America.
You forget the state China was in following the Cultural Revolution. Among those even slightly informed of the country's history, you will not find a single individual who will deny the immense progress the country has made. China is currently investing more in alternative energy than any other nation. They have recently put forth ~$500 billion for the construction of 200 modern nuclear reactors. (just google for the source).
I have little regard for your knee-jerk reactions. But thank you for contributing to the discussion a misguided view which is partially representative of the ignorant population.
I didn't forget the culture revolution thank you very much but I can't say it left an impression on me as I wasn't born then and I would wager that you weren't either. Also I failed to see how its relevant to the topic of today. We are afterall talking about the future of Chinese rise not its past.
Being informed about one's history doesn't equate with turning a blind eye to history's negatives, I challenge you to take a lesson in this and then come back and actually address the points I've made as your *informed* opinion evidently do not go past Chinese egoism.
On December 06 2010 10:44 Consolidate wrote: I understand economics perfectly well. Well enough to say that during a global recession, economics is worse than zero-sum - it is negative sum.
Of course it is in China's best interest for America to do well. Technically it is in everyone's best interest for everyone else to do well. The real issue is that China is less dependent on America than vice-versa. Why is it that China is among the least affected by the failure of America's financial sector?
When I allude to the Fall of America I'm speaking in relative terms - I'm not speaking about it's collapse.
I am in agreement that China's rise is a good thing. No human being deserves the burden of poverty. China is not a threat, nor should it be viewed as a threat. If anything, it's a nation governed by certain sensibilities American should learn from.
That recession is negative-sum is arguable. I personally do not agree with that, and neither does Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/opinion/01krugman.html).
Also, to say that China was "among the least affected by the failure of America's financial sector?" is just wrong. The impact on China was massive for a few of reasons: - they rely strongly on American consumers - the vast majority of China's fx reserves are in USD - the US owes shitloads to China
Hence, they had to deploy one of the largest stimulus plans in history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_economic_stimulus_program) to cope.
China and USA are dependent on each other, its as simple as that. Back in the day (well, like 7 years ago) I wrote a paper on Chinese economy and from the data I gathered (access to Bloomberg ftw) it became clear that the only way China can really become the dominant force is by developing a strong domestic market. But they are still so very far from achieving it - the difference in wealth between urban and rural populations is absolutely huge. And then you have to take into account possible political trouble - if you study Chinese history, you will see that it is not to discard.
Bottom line: in terms of GDP China will keep growing and eventually will obviosly be the biggest economy. However, it will take a massive amount of change and some luck for it to become the dominant power.
PS: if you are planning to work in an IB, I wish you good luck. Remember to have a life
On December 06 2010 11:21 iloahz wrote: I wouldn't call it the "rise" of China. China has been the most advanced nation for the past few millennia except for maybe the last 300 years.
hihi there are two people(+me) in this thread that understand that China is not the biggest world power,by western standards. I see people saying that Uk dominated the world for three centuries before US.Try China dominated the world for two and a half millennia(yep Rome was nothing compared to China;)). The same way western people are convinced ancient Egypt was the beacon of civilization,when mayans were as if not more advanced.
Oh god another political forum post where people post about half collected facts and half made up ideas from their own brain. This is why we cant have nice things.
On December 06 2010 10:29 happyness wrote: Disagree w/OP. You, along with many others, really don't understand economics. Just because China will eventually surpass the US eventually in no way shape or form means the US is going to "fall". Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Just because one economy rises doesn't mean another has to fall. On the contrary, when one economy does well other economies it interacts with also do well. It's in China's best interest to have the U.S. continue to do well economically.
Take the U.K. for example. 100 years ago it was the worlds leading power and now America is ahead of it by a long shot. But I think England is doing just fine. It's not like they are living in poverty.
China has 5 times as many people as the U.S. 5 times. If anything they should already be ahead of us, with that many people. We should all be happy that China is growing because that only means that literally millions of people will be pulled out of poverty
I understand economics perfectly well. Well enough to say that during a global recession, economics is worse than zero-sum - it is negative sum.
Of course it is in China's best interest for America to do well. Technically it is in everyone's best interest for everyone else to do well. The real issue is that China is less dependent on America than vice-versa. Why is it that China is among the least affected by the failure of America's financial sector?
When I allude to the Fall of America I'm speaking in relative terms - I'm not speaking about it's collapse.
Ok. From the OP it sounded like you were saying America is screwed because China's rising.
I am in agreement that China's rise is a good thing. No human being deserves the burden of poverty. China is not a threat, nor should it be viewed as a threat. If anything, it's a nation governed by certain sensibilities American should learn from.
China has risen because of adapting U.S. sensibilities (i.e. free market). As I said, China has so many more people than the U.S. they should surpass the U.S. eventually.
About the original question, the U.S. for the most part shouldn't follow china's way of doing things. It may be true that we have a lazy and complacent public. But I think that is often exaggerated. Americans still work more than many other industrialized nations and do effective work.
But my question to you is: what exactly are you suggesting should be done about this? Should the government get involved, like the chinese govt does with their people? Because I would definately say no to that. I believe that to change a nation culturally it has to come from the individuals and not through government force.
One thing I feel the U.S. should adapt from china though is their lack of debt. The financial crisis was caused by an inflated market due to creditors and such. Again it has to be a cultural change that I'm sure will happen. At the very least the U.S. govt should get rid of the national debt, but I don't think thats going to happen.
The direct method is through government subsidies. But the two-party system is a mess. I expect nothing from Congress.
Americans need to learn how to be industrious again. College graduates need to feel compelled toward productive careers, but they find themselves without adequate incentive.
On December 06 2010 10:44 Consolidate wrote: Of course it is in China's best interest for America to do well. Technically it is in everyone's best interest for everyone else to do well. The real issue is that China is less dependent on America than vice-versa. Why is it that China is among the least affected by the failure of America's financial sector?
Because of two things...
1) The Chinese artificially devaluate their own dollar, as such during a recession they can stop doing this and will keep their dollar at the same value. As such, this will simply result in the gaining money as they will not have to spend money to create new currency to devaluate the Yuan.
2) The Chinease purchased American dept, and as it currently stands, purchasing dept from someone else is purchasing an asset, as someone has to pay off the dept. This means that the Chinease just got a HUGE boost to the value of their country (well as a whole, who ever purchased the dept (the banks) get a huge boost which reflects on China as a whole). simply because the value of the dept is higher than the value of the dollars they spent to purchase it.
These two things means that: The Chinease dollar didn't change in value compared to anyone else, and they look a lot better as they purchased trillions of dollars in dept (which even at a 1% interest rate is worth a STUPIDLY large amount of money...)
Not to mention, even during the recession consumers did not spend that much less than they normally do, simply because China was keeping their dollar valued higher (by buying the dept). This means that China still gets payed because American consumers are still buying things.
- - - -
Sorry, but just as a side note... here's the 2008 recession in a nut shell
1) Banks bought a tonne of securities made up of parts of mortgages (from USA) 2) People in USE defaulted on mortgages 3) Securities SEVERELY devalued 4) Banks suddenly lost a TONNE of money, which they lend out 90%+ of the money they get in (they only need ~10% cash in their vaults in most countries). Now like 70% of the money they lended out was worth nothing 5) Banks were asking the other banks to pay them back, even though no one had money, so a round of defaulting on loans happend (Bank A let to bank B, Bank B lent to Bank C, Bank C lent to Bank D, etc... Bank D cant pay Bank C, Bank C cant pay Bank B because of C, etc, etc...) 6) Banks died 7) With banks dead, no one started lending 8) Businesses could not get funds 9) Businesses started to default on purchases 10) Businesses started to cut costs to pay back creditors 11) People got laid off
This is basically what happened (very simplified).
The only problem, is in the USA, what happened, is some where around part 5, the USA started to give money to Banks, and other countries (like China, Canada, UK, etc...) purchased the Dept the USA brought on to pay their banks to keep them alive.
This means unlike in Ireland and Iceland, the US dollar did not devaluate as much as it should have.
So less people get laid off in USA, less businesses close, and this means people keep borrowing and lending, and paying companies (this is why a lot of companies are not better off than they ever were...) and this is why China can afford to buy trillions of dollars of dept they will never get repayed for... simply because Americans buy so much stuff and just keep on paying China.
Very good right up however you say Dept alot.(unless I am an idiot thats not a word, unless you are abreviating Department and it still doesnt make sense) I assume you mean Debt, I noticed a few other people making this mistake.
Does anyone know if learning Mandarin or Cantonese is a must for working in China/Hongkong or what languages you would want?
On December 06 2010 11:21 iloahz wrote: I wouldn't call it the "rise" of China. China has been the most advanced nation for the past few millennia except for maybe the last 300 years.
hihi there are two people(+me) in this thread that understand that China is not the biggest world power,by western standards. I see people saying that Uk dominated the world for three centuries before US.Try China dominated the world for two and a half millennia(yep Rome was nothing compared to China;)). The same way western people are convinced ancient Egypt was the beacon of civilization,when mayans were as if not more advanced.
I think it is fairly obvious from the opening post that the discussion revolves around the contemporary economic situation, and not some undefined time frame in the past. In addition, China has never "dominated the world". It has always been a regional power by any metric. This topic is to debate whether it can be a global power in the new economic climate, and whether that will come at the expense of America.
On December 06 2010 10:08 haduken wrote: China is even more screwed than USA. You see all the new highrises going up in cities and talk of cashed up tourists buying louis vutton, what you don't see is the billions of peasants and under-privleged urban dwellers who have very little means to survive let alone own a home.
You don't see the gross pollution around Chinese cities and the growing deserts in China's north. You also don't see the hidden tensions in Chinese society and the vast youth unemployment.
You think China is it? think again, generations of leaders have pushed problems into the future. The country will implode before the fall of America.
You forget the state China was in following the Cultural Revolution. Among those even slightly informed of the country's history, you will not find a single individual who will deny the immense progress the country has made. China is currently investing more in alternative energy than any other nation. They have recently put forth ~$500 billion for the construction of 200 modern nuclear reactors. (just google for the source).
I have little regard for your knee-jerk reactions. But thank you for contributing to the discussion a misguided view which is partially representative of the ignorant population.
I didn't forget the culture revolution thank you very much but I can't say it left an impression on me as I wasn't born then and I would wager that you weren't either. Also I failed to see how its relevant to the topic of today. We are afterall talking about the future of Chinese rise not its past.
Being informed about one's history doesn't equate with turning a blind eye to history's negatives, I challenge you to take a lesson in this and then come back and actually address the points I've made as your *informed* opinion evidently do not go past Chinese egoism.
Want me to show you China's current unemployment numbers vs. that of the 1970s?
I believe I already addressed your points on pollution.
Relative income disparity has shown to have been a by-product of free-market growth. As long as more and more Chinese get pulled out of poverty, the fact that a few people are also getting very rich doesn't bother me.
The very point I'm making highlights China's historical negatives. I don't understand what you're getting at.
I wouldn't call it the "rise" of China. China has been the most advanced nation for the past few millennia except for maybe the last 300 years.
sort of. China has not been a 'nation' any more than Europe is for more than a century. Historically, one might use china in exactly the same way one would use europe- it has been variously as divided and united as the European peninsula. However, you are correct that historically china has advanced alongside europe in terms of overall development in culture, technology and influence, up until the 19th century where europe hit the industrial revolution and china didn't follow. The communist revolution then united china for the first time ever in its modern form, though even so china is more like a european union than a single nation- many different provinces with their own dialects, cultures, specialisations, economies and levels of development, with one guiding body organising them.
So china has been a kind of opposite to 'the west' as a collective entity. Now, with SK, Japan, Taiwan, singapore, Indonesia and vietnam they form a more cohesive 'east' that is rapidly catching up to the 'west' in terms of technological potential, industrial potential and military clout.
China has a huge aging population and a shrinking work force. It can't sustain its growth for the next 20 years. This much is a fact.
You think most of the stuff right now are 'Made in China'. But as China's work force shrinks, labour price will rise, and the big companies can easily move elsewhere for cheaper labour... such as Southeast Asia (I am already seeing products from these regions on the rise), India, and certain parts of Africa.
The income disparity in China is already causing a lot of trouble. Just look at the ethnic riots in the last couple of years, all happened in poor provinces.
On December 06 2010 10:29 happyness wrote: Disagree w/OP. You, along with many others, really don't understand economics. Just because China will eventually surpass the US eventually in no way shape or form means the US is going to "fall". Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Just because one economy rises doesn't mean another has to fall. On the contrary, when one economy does well other economies it interacts with also do well. It's in China's best interest to have the U.S. continue to do well economically.
Take the U.K. for example. 100 years ago it was the worlds leading power and now America is ahead of it by a long shot. But I think England is doing just fine. It's not like they are living in poverty.
China has 5 times as many people as the U.S. 5 times. If anything they should already be ahead of us, with that many people. We should all be happy that China is growing because that only means that literally millions of people will be pulled out of poverty
I understand economics perfectly well. Well enough to say that during a global recession, economics is worse than zero-sum - it is negative sum.
Of course it is in China's best interest for America to do well. Technically it is in everyone's best interest for everyone else to do well. The real issue is that China is less dependent on America than vice-versa. Why is it that China is among the least affected by the failure of America's financial sector?
When I allude to the Fall of America I'm speaking in relative terms - I'm not speaking about it's collapse.
Ok. From the OP it sounded like you were saying America is screwed because China's rising.
I am in agreement that China's rise is a good thing. No human being deserves the burden of poverty. China is not a threat, nor should it be viewed as a threat. If anything, it's a nation governed by certain sensibilities American should learn from.
China has risen because of adapting U.S. sensibilities (i.e. free market). As I said, China has so many more people than the U.S. they should surpass the U.S. eventually.
About the original question, the U.S. for the most part shouldn't follow china's way of doing things. It may be true that we have a lazy and complacent public. But I think that is often exaggerated. Americans still work more than many other industrialized nations and do effective work.
But my question to you is: what exactly are you suggesting should be done about this? Should the government get involved, like the chinese govt does with their people? Because I would definately say no to that. I believe that to change a nation culturally it has to come from the individuals and not through government force.
One thing I feel the U.S. should adapt from china though is their lack of debt. The financial crisis was caused by an inflated market due to creditors and such. Again it has to be a cultural change that I'm sure will happen. At the very least the U.S. govt should get rid of the national debt, but I don't think thats going to happen.
The direct method is through government subsidies. But the two-party system is a mess. I expect nothing from Congress.
Americans need to learn how to be industrious again. College graduates need to feel compelled toward productive careers, but they find themselves without adequate incentive.
Projecting much?
Your first post cites nothing concrete in terms of argument; you throw out vague phrases like "inefficient service sector" and "complacent public" with the hopes of drawing in some sort of debate. I'd usually call troll, but for some reason I think you are attempting to be serious.
On December 06 2010 11:46 Sufficiency wrote: China has a huge aging population and a shrinking work force. It can't sustain its growth for the next 20 years. This much is a fact.
You think most of the stuff right now are 'Made in China'. But as China's work force shrinks, labour price will rise, and the big companies can easily move elsewhere for cheaper labour... such as Southeast Asia (I am already seeing products from these regions on the rise), India, and certain parts of Africa.
The income disparity in China is already causing a lot of trouble. Just look at the ethnic riots in the last couple of years, all happened in poor provinces.
If it relies on pure manufacturing for it's growth, then your point is arguable. As it stands, China is investing heavily into hi-tech sectors and affording copious research grants to grow it's specialized workforce.
Whether or not ~8%-10% growth is perfectly maintainable is a cosmetic concern.
On December 06 2010 10:08 haduken wrote: China is even more screwed than USA. You see all the new highrises going up in cities and talk of cashed up tourists buying louis vutton, what you don't see is the billions of peasants and under-privleged urban dwellers who have very little means to survive let alone own a home.
You don't see the gross pollution around Chinese cities and the growing deserts in China's north. You also don't see the hidden tensions in Chinese society and the vast youth unemployment.
You think China is it? think again, generations of leaders have pushed problems into the future. The country will implode before the fall of America.
You forget the state China was in following the Cultural Revolution. Among those even slightly informed of the country's history, you will not find a single individual who will deny the immense progress the country has made. China is currently investing more in alternative energy than any other nation. They have recently put forth ~$500 billion for the construction of 200 modern nuclear reactors. (just google for the source).
I have little regard for your knee-jerk reactions. But thank you for contributing to the discussion a misguided view which is partially representative of the ignorant population.
That's very true, and if their recent claims of having developed a fusion reactor are true, they're light years ahead of us on energy. However, china has a growing debt, and it also has a looming housing bubble. Not to mention, since china has started throwing its weight around, businesses have started looking for greener pastures (korea, india, brazil, etc). While they're still on the up and up, and will remain so for probably the next 10 years, China has serious problems that need to be addressed if it expects to remain a stable state.
Scientifically we don't know how to do fusion yet. So no, they aren't building fusion plants. The day we can do fusion is the day we no longer have to worry about energy
They are building fission plants, which the US has too. Fission plants are more efficient and environment friendly than some other forms of energy, but only if no accidents happen.
I'm aware of the difference. And i'm aware that they don't exist yet. Which is why i said " their recent claims of having developed a fusion reactor are true". If this claim is true though, then it has serious implications. Even their goal of 200 fission reactors by 2020 is a big deal.
On December 06 2010 11:00 Retgery wrote: I would be more afraid that China currently own 10% of USA's dept (about 170 billion) right this second, and if they suddenly stop covering they can send your ecnomy into a tail spin and you'll be in another depression
This is scare tactics used by debt hounds in the US congress and senate.
If china did call in the debt, we just wouldn't pay. What would chinas response be? Would they attempt to topple the dollar? If they did that, they would bring down half of the worlds majors economies. They would literally be committing national suicide if they did that. Not to mention if they tried we'd slap a 200% tariff on any Chinese imports, or something ridiculous like that. If you want to see an economy go into a tail spin, think of china with no US trade.
Here is an interesting video that tracks the health and wealth of 200 countries over 200 years. It also touches on internal disparity in China. The thrust of the video is to show the general trending of countries into the future.
On December 06 2010 11:00 Retgery wrote: I would be more afraid that China currently own 10% of USA's dept (about 170 billion) right this second, and if they suddenly stop covering they can send your ecnomy into a tail spin and you'll be in another depression
This is scare tactics used by debt hounds in the US congress and senate.
If china did call in the debt, we just wouldn't pay. What would chinas response be? Would they attempt to topple the dollar? If they did that, they would bring down half of the worlds majors economies. They would literally be committing national suicide if they did that. Not to mention if they tried we'd slap a 200% tariff on any Chinese imports, or something ridiculous like that. If you want to see an economy go into a tail spin, think of china with no US trade.
No the US wouldn't retaliate. Neither side will make a move, both economies are both very intertwined that its in the best interest for both to work together. Neither side really holds the upper hand where they can force the other, but China has gotten better part of the deal (emphasis on the relative nature of the word better).
On December 06 2010 10:29 happyness wrote: Disagree w/OP. You, along with many others, really don't understand economics. Just because China will eventually surpass the US eventually in no way shape or form means the US is going to "fall". Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Just because one economy rises doesn't mean another has to fall. On the contrary, when one economy does well other economies it interacts with also do well. It's in China's best interest to have the U.S. continue to do well economically.
Take the U.K. for example. 100 years ago it was the worlds leading power and now America is ahead of it by a long shot. But I think England is doing just fine. It's not like they are living in poverty.
China has 5 times as many people as the U.S. 5 times. If anything they should already be ahead of us, with that many people. We should all be happy that China is growing because that only means that literally millions of people will be pulled out of poverty
I understand economics perfectly well. Well enough to say that during a global recession, economics is worse than zero-sum - it is negative sum.
Of course it is in China's best interest for America to do well. Technically it is in everyone's best interest for everyone else to do well. The real issue is that China is less dependent on America than vice-versa. Why is it that China is among the least affected by the failure of America's financial sector?
When I allude to the Fall of America I'm speaking in relative terms - I'm not speaking about it's collapse.
Ok. From the OP it sounded like you were saying America is screwed because China's rising.
I am in agreement that China's rise is a good thing. No human being deserves the burden of poverty. China is not a threat, nor should it be viewed as a threat. If anything, it's a nation governed by certain sensibilities American should learn from.
China has risen because of adapting U.S. sensibilities (i.e. free market). As I said, China has so many more people than the U.S. they should surpass the U.S. eventually.
About the original question, the U.S. for the most part shouldn't follow china's way of doing things. It may be true that we have a lazy and complacent public. But I think that is often exaggerated. Americans still work more than many other industrialized nations and do effective work.
But my question to you is: what exactly are you suggesting should be done about this? Should the government get involved, like the chinese govt does with their people? Because I would definately say no to that. I believe that to change a nation culturally it has to come from the individuals and not through government force.
One thing I feel the U.S. should adapt from china though is their lack of debt. The financial crisis was caused by an inflated market due to creditors and such. Again it has to be a cultural change that I'm sure will happen. At the very least the U.S. govt should get rid of the national debt, but I don't think thats going to happen.
The direct method is through government subsidies. But the two-party system is a mess. I expect nothing from Congress.
Americans need to learn how to be industrious again. College graduates need to feel compelled toward productive careers, but they find themselves without adequate incentive.
Projecting much?
Your first post cites nothing concrete in terms of argument; you throw out vague phrases like "inefficient service sector" and "complacent public" with the hopes of drawing in some sort of debate. I'd usually call troll, but for some reason I think you are attempting to be serious.
Yes. I made it explicit that I am partially projecting my own motivations.
Government spending numbers are concrete enough. I can provide a few more if you are interested.
As my talk of a complacent public, I don't know what evidence there is beyond broad observations. That the service sector is stealing away talent other industries is fairly well-known. The fact that financial institutions are either incompetent or corrupt is fairly accepted as well.
Goldman Sachs sold junk mortgage-backed securities rated as AAA, while also purchasing an absurd amount of credit-default swaps against the very product they were peddling. This was a clever maneuver that made them a good deal of money, but this is money won on successful gambling at the expense of others who bet poorly. This sort of money made is zero-sum and not productive - thus I consider it to be an inefficient sector contributing to the growth of the economy.
Any other objections? (yeah yeah passive-aggressive i know*)
As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
1. 8~10% is NOT perfectly maintainable. We went through this: "Wow this country is growing so fast it will surpass the US in no time by maintaining this insane growth." The first was the Soviet Union. The second was Japan. The third was so called four tigers. Now we are talking about this again.
The thing is that as you mobilize more and more resource for economic developement the next marginal labor or resource will be less efficient because you mobize more efficient ones first. Even now educated Chinese work force is having diffculty finding a job. This mobilization of resource will hit the wall sooner or later. Remeber. it's easy to reduce your time when you run 100m in 20 seconds, but not when you run in 9.8 seconds.
2. China is not politically stable. Although it looks remarkably stable now, but the government is basically comforting the population at large using economic growth. When the mobilization of resources slows down, Chinese citizens will not put up with shits they are putting up with now.
3. China is rapidly aging. This means that shrinking workerforce and decreased supply of cheap labor, which will drive up the wage and put China in a less competitive position.
Even if China undertakes the US for the biggest economy in the world, that would not mean the end of the world. They are Communists in name only, and nations don't go to war for colonies anymore. There might be some qurrels around regional politics around Middle East and Asia, but it does not involve some Doomsday scenarios like the cold war. China and the US will be rivals but do not have to be enemies.
China will likely fake its numbers if necessary. As long as actual growth remains relatively reasonable, foreign interests probably won't be too effected.
To be frank, I haven't looked deeply into the impact China's aging workforce will have on it's economy. All that I know is that this concern hasn't really discouraged foreign-investment.
On December 06 2010 11:00 Retgery wrote: I would be more afraid that China currently own 10% of USA's dept (about 170 billion) right this second, and if they suddenly stop covering they can send your ecnomy into a tail spin and you'll be in another depression
We'd just invade Canada for natural resources like in Fallout 3. I heard the US military is working on an Igloo breaking bomb that can penetrate even the latest Maple Syrup armor of the Canadian armies :D
China and USA are in symbiosis, kind of like Tasteless and Artosis.
If America falls for any reason Canada is more than likely to suffer a ton as well economically and maybe even from nuclear winds or bio/chemical weapons. Canada is tied to America pretty closely in many ways.
Agree too much liberty has brought the wrong concept into ppl's brain.
If you take a good look at Asian countries, you would find how competitive the education system is compared to USA and how everyone struggled to get a normal job.
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
On December 06 2010 10:11 sk` wrote: Since 4 can be labeled as the cause of 1, 2, and 3 only 4 needs to be stated. In Japan, we actually have a 7.5 hour work day and our per-person GDP is higher than the states. I was born American, but I will curse the day when I have to live there again. I go back constantly for business trips and I am always appalled at how shitty the American worker has become - lazy, constantly complaining, insane unearned sense of entitlement. It is no longer if Atlas shrugs or not, the weight of the unproductive world (American world) has bloated to unbearable levels. Atlas changed countries.
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom.
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary.
A junior analyst at a bulge-bracket IB makes around 60k-100k salary + equivalent bonus. Bonuses in IB are insane.
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary.
The complacent public really is the driving point imo. Before the US was all about going all out to be No.1 We had good education and incentives for getting there and people were motivated toward a goal. After we achieved the high status of the solo superpower after the cold war we basically said "ok lets just sit back and enjoy this shit" and we have been in decline ever since. Now other countries are catching up, and they are educating their people better and better (either by coming here to finish advanced studies or building their own) they are motivated to improving and we aren't. It will take some big pitfall or something that really starts to affect the public on a large scale to motivate them to start change again towards the positive. Personally I don't care what position the US is on "the global dick scale" for economy/power. If China/India/whoever takes over that top spot then good for them. It might be good imo if we contract our influence IE having military bases fucking EVERYWHERE around the globe and stop trying to control/meddle with other countries.
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary.
A junior analyst at a bulge-bracket IB makes around 60k-100k salary + equivalent bonus. Bonuses in IB are insane.
My old flatmate worked in the position you described for a major IB here in London. His salary was indeed very high, but his hourly wage was lower than when he worked in Burger King. And that was before they cut his bonus due to the crisis. Also, IB bankers have one of the highest suicide rates in the population. There is a reason why they pay that much.
China has a population of what, 1.5 billion people? Just imagine if China were able to fully tap that buying power. As soon as the Chinese government finds a way to bring the rest of the country up to speed and get people to start buying domestic products, the country will shoot to the top of economic food chain.
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary.
A junior analyst at a bulge-bracket IB makes around 60k-100k salary + equivalent bonus. Bonuses in IB are insane.
My old flatmate worked in the position you described for a major IB here in London. His salary was indeed very high, but his hourly wage was lower than when he worked in Burger King. And that was before they cut his bonus due to the crisis. Also, IB bankers have one of the highest suicide rates in the population. There is a reason why they pay that much.
It's a pretty shitty job, to be honest. But it is one of the only sure-fire ways to get rich. Most people only work two years at an IB before moving to a consulting firm or a hedge-fund.
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary.
That is what TS has stated
It's quite easy actually. Just have a dad that have a 9 figure salary
It's totally wrong to to correlate the West's complacency to "liberty" or democracy. China is going through that period of economic growth boom that other countries such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan went through during the last 2 decade. The biggest difference is that China is just so massive in terms of population and country size, so the effects are just so much more significant.
On December 06 2010 10:29 happyness wrote: Disagree w/OP. You, along with many others, really don't understand economics. Just because China will eventually surpass the US eventually in no way shape or form means the US is going to "fall". Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Just because one economy rises doesn't mean another has to fall. On the contrary, when one economy does well other economies it interacts with also do well. It's in China's best interest to have the U.S. continue to do well economically.
Take the U.K. for example. 100 years ago it was the worlds leading power and now America is ahead of it by a long shot. But I think England is doing just fine. It's not like they are living in poverty.
China has 5 times as many people as the U.S. 5 times. If anything they should already be ahead of us, with that many people. We should all be happy that China is growing because that only means that literally millions of people will be pulled out of poverty
I understand economics perfectly well. Well enough to say that during a global recession, economics is worse than zero-sum - it is negative sum.
Of course it is in China's best interest for America to do well. Technically it is in everyone's best interest for everyone else to do well. The real issue is that China is less dependent on America than vice-versa. Why is it that China is among the least affected by the failure of America's financial sector?
When I allude to the Fall of America I'm speaking in relative terms - I'm not speaking about it's collapse.
Ok. From the OP it sounded like you were saying America is screwed because China's rising.
I am in agreement that China's rise is a good thing. No human being deserves the burden of poverty. China is not a threat, nor should it be viewed as a threat. If anything, it's a nation governed by certain sensibilities American should learn from.
China has risen because of adapting U.S. sensibilities (i.e. free market). As I said, China has so many more people than the U.S. they should surpass the U.S. eventually.
About the original question, the U.S. for the most part shouldn't follow china's way of doing things. It may be true that we have a lazy and complacent public. But I think that is often exaggerated. Americans still work more than many other industrialized nations and do effective work.
But my question to you is: what exactly are you suggesting should be done about this? Should the government get involved, like the chinese govt does with their people? Because I would definately say no to that. I believe that to change a nation culturally it has to come from the individuals and not through government force.
One thing I feel the U.S. should adapt from china though is their lack of debt. The financial crisis was caused by an inflated market due to creditors and such. Again it has to be a cultural change that I'm sure will happen. At the very least the U.S. govt should get rid of the national debt, but I don't think thats going to happen.
The direct method is through government subsidies. But the two-party system is a mess. I expect nothing from Congress.
Americans need to learn how to be industrious again. College graduates need to feel compelled toward productive careers, but they find themselves without adequate incentive.
Projecting much?
Your first post cites nothing concrete in terms of argument; you throw out vague phrases like "inefficient service sector" and "complacent public" with the hopes of drawing in some sort of debate. I'd usually call troll, but for some reason I think you are attempting to be serious.
Yes. I made it explicit that I am partially projecting my own motivations.
Government spending numbers are concrete enough. I can provide a few more if you are interested.
As my talk of a complacent public, I don't know what evidence there is beyond broad observations. That the service sector is stealing away talent other industries is fairly well-known. The fact that financial institutions are either incompetent or corrupt is fairly accepted as well.
Goldman Sachs sold junk mortgage-backed securities rated as AAA, while also purchasing an absurd amount of credit-default swaps against the very product they were peddling. This was a clever maneuver that made them a good deal of money, but this is money won on successful gambling at the expense of others who bet poorly. This sort of money made is zero-sum and not productive - thus I consider it to be an inefficient sector contributing to the growth of the economy.
Any other objections? (yeah yeah passive-aggressive i know*)
So your argument for an inefficient service sector is this one example which happens to be in everyone's mind?
GS along with many other major IBs packaged RMBS (along with dozens of other types of asset backed securities) during this time period. The creation of this product was deemed (and will prove to be in the future) an excellent feat of financial engineering. IBs often act counterparty to bets made against (CDS) the products they originate (re; hedging et al). In addition to all this they made a killing doing so, ergo not an example of incompetency.
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary.
A junior analyst at a bulge-bracket IB makes around 60k-100k salary + equivalent bonus. Bonuses in IB are insane.
My old flatmate worked in the position you described for a major IB here in London. His salary was indeed very high, but his hourly wage was lower than when he worked in Burger King. And that was before they cut his bonus due to the crisis. Also, IB bankers have one of the highest suicide rates in the population. There is a reason why they pay that much.
It's a pretty shitty job, to be honest. But it is one of the only sure-fire ways to get rich. Most people only work two years at an IB before moving to a consulting firm or a hedge-fund.
IB exit ops are PE or VC, it's usually S&T that goes on to work at HFs
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom.
Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income.
Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution.
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary.
A junior analyst at a bulge-bracket IB makes around 60k-100k salary + equivalent bonus. Bonuses in IB are insane.
However, IBs should expect 80 hour+ work weeks with very little time off. So if you look at it in terms of hourly pay, you should divide that number by two.
I don't understand what you guys mean by americans being "lazy and complacent". Care to elaborate? I don't have a first hand experience with the US. So I could be wrong. But I read a lot of different tech news and blogs from everywhere and consequently even end up reading a few business blogs here and there. And the impression that I get is the exact opposite. Americans seem like the most aggressive, reckless, inventive and forward-thinking entrepreneurs in the whole world. And most importantly, the most active and intense market. More so than China even.
So I cannot see what is this talk about a "complacent public". I would love to hear more. Personally, I would put more blame of the american "crisis" into what the OP numbered as 1 and 2, which are basically consequences of number 3 (corrupt and short-sighted congress). Or am I missing something obvious?
On December 06 2010 10:29 happyness wrote: Disagree w/OP. You, along with many others, really don't understand economics. Just because China will eventually surpass the US eventually in no way shape or form means the US is going to "fall". Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Just because one economy rises doesn't mean another has to fall. On the contrary, when one economy does well other economies it interacts with also do well. It's in China's best interest to have the U.S. continue to do well economically.
Take the U.K. for example. 100 years ago it was the worlds leading power and now America is ahead of it by a long shot. But I think England is doing just fine. It's not like they are living in poverty.
China has 5 times as many people as the U.S. 5 times. If anything they should already be ahead of us, with that many people. We should all be happy that China is growing because that only means that literally millions of people will be pulled out of poverty
I understand economics perfectly well. Well enough to say that during a global recession, economics is worse than zero-sum - it is negative sum.
Of course it is in China's best interest for America to do well. Technically it is in everyone's best interest for everyone else to do well. The real issue is that China is less dependent on America than vice-versa. Why is it that China is among the least affected by the failure of America's financial sector?
When I allude to the Fall of America I'm speaking in relative terms - I'm not speaking about it's collapse.
Ok. From the OP it sounded like you were saying America is screwed because China's rising.
I am in agreement that China's rise is a good thing. No human being deserves the burden of poverty. China is not a threat, nor should it be viewed as a threat. If anything, it's a nation governed by certain sensibilities American should learn from.
China has risen because of adapting U.S. sensibilities (i.e. free market). As I said, China has so many more people than the U.S. they should surpass the U.S. eventually.
About the original question, the U.S. for the most part shouldn't follow china's way of doing things. It may be true that we have a lazy and complacent public. But I think that is often exaggerated. Americans still work more than many other industrialized nations and do effective work.
But my question to you is: what exactly are you suggesting should be done about this? Should the government get involved, like the chinese govt does with their people? Because I would definately say no to that. I believe that to change a nation culturally it has to come from the individuals and not through government force.
One thing I feel the U.S. should adapt from china though is their lack of debt. The financial crisis was caused by an inflated market due to creditors and such. Again it has to be a cultural change that I'm sure will happen. At the very least the U.S. govt should get rid of the national debt, but I don't think thats going to happen.
The direct method is through government subsidies. But the two-party system is a mess. I expect nothing from Congress.
Americans need to learn how to be industrious again. College graduates need to feel compelled toward productive careers, but they find themselves without adequate incentive.
Projecting much?
Your first post cites nothing concrete in terms of argument; you throw out vague phrases like "inefficient service sector" and "complacent public" with the hopes of drawing in some sort of debate. I'd usually call troll, but for some reason I think you are attempting to be serious.
Yes. I made it explicit that I am partially projecting my own motivations.
Government spending numbers are concrete enough. I can provide a few more if you are interested.
As my talk of a complacent public, I don't know what evidence there is beyond broad observations. That the service sector is stealing away talent other industries is fairly well-known. The fact that financial institutions are either incompetent or corrupt is fairly accepted as well.
Goldman Sachs sold junk mortgage-backed securities rated as AAA, while also purchasing an absurd amount of credit-default swaps against the very product they were peddling. This was a clever maneuver that made them a good deal of money, but this is money won on successful gambling at the expense of others who bet poorly. This sort of money made is zero-sum and not productive - thus I consider it to be an inefficient sector contributing to the growth of the economy.
Any other objections? (yeah yeah passive-aggressive i know*)
So your argument for an inefficient service sector is this one example which happens to be in everyone's mind?
GS along with many other major IBs packaged RMBS (along with dozens of other types of asset backed securities) during this time period. The creation of this product was deemed (and will prove to be in the future) an excellent feat of financial engineering. IBs often act counterparty to bets made against (CDS) the products they originate (re; hedging et al). In addition to all this they made a killing doing so, ergo not an example of incompetency.
Yes. I choose this example precisely because it is so well-known. Are you intending to argue that such a practice creates real wealth? If not, I don't see why you have issue with my describing it as inefficient.
As far as competency goes, yes GS is competent. Other banks like Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers were not competent.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom.
Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income.
Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution.
Like I said, we saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. If you ask any chinese students studying in the states about chinas authoritarianism, the majority of them basically give you a response of "it works, why complain" or "I'm happy, why change". They are 100% aware of its lack of freedom in comparison to the united states, they just don't care for the most part.
Countries like japan, korea, and china have cultures that emphasize fitting in as well. It's not a normal thought process to just rebel for most of them, regardless of education.
You know how we have the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"?
In china, they have a saying that goes "the raised nail gets the hammer"
China's pumping drones HARD -- the USA on the other hand, is investing way too much in its defense and army.
Hmm this is all interesting, but yea it is a little funny how some people I've seen internet-wise are scared of this, I mean c'mon wayy back then China was huge (when the west and east were still separate and maybe barely when America was colonial), but as they were quite rich/advanced, they got lazy relative to the rest of the world. That and how they kept fighting amongst themselves (well I guess it's to be expected considering how big China was and how hard it was to communicate). But on the other side of the world the Americans were united, eventually rebelling against Britain and growing into the mega country it is today. Oh and of course also the imperialistic era before today where they sent troops to China.
So it's sort of like history repeating itself; now China is working hard, while the many people in the US think they're the best and will/should be the best forever, without having to work hard individually. And because of this China will probably rise above the US. But hey, can't complain can you? It's not like there's a law that Americans have to be the richest ever xD. And like others said, just because China rises doesn't mean America will get poorer. Good example I saw was UK back in the day when it was like the strongest nation, compared to now where the US is much richer than the UK but the UK is still fairly rich.
Anyways I always think such changes make life interesting, gives you something to look forward to. Oh and also gives something for TL'ers and Starcraft fans to discuss :D
Haha sometimes I wish Japan, Korea, and China (Taiwan too may be, although not my priority) were all one country, that way I could just focus on that one country's language for Anime/VideoGames, eSports/Starcraft, and... um well, Chinese-related stuff xD.
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary.
A junior analyst at a bulge-bracket IB makes around 60k-100k salary + equivalent bonus. Bonuses in IB are insane.
My old flatmate worked in the position you described for a major IB here in London. His salary was indeed very high, but his hourly wage was lower than when he worked in Burger King. And that was before they cut his bonus due to the crisis. Also, IB bankers have one of the highest suicide rates in the population. There is a reason why they pay that much.
It's a pretty shitty job, to be honest. But it is one of the only sure-fire ways to get rich. Most people only work two years at an IB before moving to a consulting firm or a hedge-fund.
IB exit ops are PE or VC, it's usually S&T that goes on to work at HFs
Could you please decipher these terms? I've tried googling them but am still not sure.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom.
Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income.
Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution.
Like I said, we saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. If you ask any chinese students studying in the states about chinas authoritarianism, the majority of them basically give you a response of "it works, why complain" or "I'm happy, why change". They are 100% aware of its lack of freedom in comparison to the united states, they just don't care for the most part.
Countries like japan, korea, and china have cultures that emphasize fitting in as well. It's not a normal thought process to just rebel for most of them, regardless of education.
You know how we have the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"?
In china, they have a saying that goes "the raised nail gets the hammer"
That is totally wrong, chinese people do hate the government, its just the government just squishes any sort of revolution be it either internet or on the streets. I have many chinese foreign students that say the same. They understand the situation, but its very hard when you have a government that is willing to pull tanks on you when your just holding a sign.
For what i have seen, the chinese are used to have strong a ruler, one of the main differences with the US. A very powerfull chinese group/person can proclaim itself king and there would be no MAJOR unrest. Try proclaiming yourself king of America and tell me how it goes.
I hate considering predictions as a fact, but considering that whenever a new world power rises there is a big war, it would not surprise me some asshole country bombing the fuck out of somewhere.
ON the international affaires subject i would like to point out that the Germans have been doing some really good silent job on owning europe and sharing it with the russians. And they are not that silent anymore. You should really check Merkel's latest statements.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom.
Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income.
Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution.
Like I said, we saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. If you ask any chinese students studying in the states about chinas authoritarianism, the majority of them basically give you a response of "it works, why complain" or "I'm happy, why change". They are 100% aware of its lack of freedom in comparison to the united states, they just don't care for the most part.
Countries like japan, korea, and china have cultures that emphasize fitting in as well. It's not a normal thought process to just rebel for most of them, regardless of education.
You know how we have the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"?
In china, they have a saying that goes "the raised nail gets the hammer"
That is totally wrong, chinese people do hate the government, its just the government just squishes any sort of revolution be it either internet or on the streets. I have many chinese foreign students that say the same. They understand the situation, but its very hard when you have a government that is willing to pull tanks on you when your just holding a sign.
Umm, there is a difference between being critical of the government versus being against the government. I hope you understand that difference and realize that there are individuals that curse their fates for being born into X country for Y government everywhere.
On the contrary, most Chinese people (actually all) I know support the government despite being critical about some aspects of it.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom.
Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income.
Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution.
Like I said, we saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. If you ask any chinese students studying in the states about chinas authoritarianism, the majority of them basically give you a response of "it works, why complain" or "I'm happy, why change". They are 100% aware of its lack of freedom in comparison to the united states, they just don't care for the most part.
Countries like japan, korea, and china have cultures that emphasize fitting in as well. It's not a normal thought process to just rebel for most of them, regardless of education.
You know how we have the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"?
In china, they have a saying that goes "the raised nail gets the hammer"
That is totally wrong, chinese people do hate the government, its just the government just squishes any sort of revolution be it either internet or on the streets. I have many chinese foreign students that say the same. They understand the situation, but its very hard when you have a government that is willing to pull tanks on you when your just holding a sign.
That's a rather large blanket statement. Many Chinese people hate the government, but many more are either apathetic or support it.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom.
Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income.
Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution.
Like I said, we saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. If you ask any chinese students studying in the states about chinas authoritarianism, the majority of them basically give you a response of "it works, why complain" or "I'm happy, why change". They are 100% aware of its lack of freedom in comparison to the united states, they just don't care for the most part.
Countries like japan, korea, and china have cultures that emphasize fitting in as well. It's not a normal thought process to just rebel for most of them, regardless of education.
You know how we have the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"?
In china, they have a saying that goes "the raised nail gets the hammer"
That is totally wrong, chinese people do hate the government, its just the government just squishes any sort of revolution be it either internet or on the streets. I have many chinese foreign students that say the same. They understand the situation, but its very hard when you have a government that is willing to pull tanks on you when your just holding a sign.
When did I say they all liked the government. I said the majority, which implies not all of them, are apathetic about the government. I also said they're content with how things are. I hate the US government but I'm not raging in the streets hurling molotovs into the windows or post offices because I'm content with how my life is.
And how is it totally wrong when you reposted almost exactly what I said?
That is totally wrong, chinese people do hate the government, its just the government just squishes any sort of revolution be it either internet or on the streets. I have many chinese foreign students that say the same. They understand the situation, but its very hard when you have a government that is willing to pull tanks on you when your just holding a sign.
Funny, because I have the exact OPPOSITE experience in China, and I spend a good 4 months there each year. The average Chinese person doesn't place too much emphasis on ideas about absolute freedom or liberty or whatnot. They DO care that the government is leading the nation to greater prominence internationally.
I had a Beijing taxi driver talk to me for an entire 20 minute drive about how awesome the government was for it's role in advancing the economy. His argument was that nowhere else in the world could anybody see more automobiles. That may be an exaggeration, but it was evident he was very supportive of government policies.
Sure, people crack jokes at the governments expense a lot, but it's never really inflammatory. They accept censorship and the like, so long as the government continues to help China forge its way forward.
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary.
A junior analyst at a bulge-bracket IB makes around 60k-100k salary + equivalent bonus. Bonuses in IB are insane.
My old flatmate worked in the position you described for a major IB here in London. His salary was indeed very high, but his hourly wage was lower than when he worked in Burger King. And that was before they cut his bonus due to the crisis. Also, IB bankers have one of the highest suicide rates in the population. There is a reason why they pay that much.
It's a pretty shitty job, to be honest. But it is one of the only sure-fire ways to get rich. Most people only work two years at an IB before moving to a consulting firm or a hedge-fund.
IB exit ops are PE or VC, it's usually S&T that goes on to work at HFs
Could you please decipher these terms? I've tried googling them but am still not sure.
Investment banking, private equity, venture capital, sales and trading, hedge fund in that order.
Insidethebox is more correct in his statement than I was in mine.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom.
Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income.
Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution.
Like I said, we saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. If you ask any chinese students studying in the states about chinas authoritarianism, the majority of them basically give you a response of "it works, why complain" or "I'm happy, why change". They are 100% aware of its lack of freedom in comparison to the united states, they just don't care for the most part.
Countries like japan, korea, and china have cultures that emphasize fitting in as well. It's not a normal thought process to just rebel for most of them, regardless of education.
You know how we have the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"?
In china, they have a saying that goes "the raised nail gets the hammer"
I'm sorry I should have made my point clearer.
What I meant to get across is that China won't be able to afford to hammer down the nail without destroying all they have worked towards. When the economic future of a country rests on the shoulders of the people it's the people who have the final say in policy.
If it comes down to elections or economic instability Democracy prevails.
A nice example is Singapore. The Authoritarian regime that ruled them allowed for immense economic growth but out of that growth came cries for reform. I believe they have recently held their first democratic elections.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom.
Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income.
Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution.
Like I said, we saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. If you ask any chinese students studying in the states about chinas authoritarianism, the majority of them basically give you a response of "it works, why complain" or "I'm happy, why change". They are 100% aware of its lack of freedom in comparison to the united states, they just don't care for the most part.
Countries like japan, korea, and china have cultures that emphasize fitting in as well. It's not a normal thought process to just rebel for most of them, regardless of education.
You know how we have the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"?
In china, they have a saying that goes "the raised nail gets the hammer"
I'm sorry I should have made my point clearer.
What I meant to get across is that China won't be able to afford to hammer down the nail without destroying all they have worked towards. When the economic future of a country rests on the shoulders of the people it's the people who have the final say in policy.
If it comes down to elections or economic instability Democracy prevails.
A nice example is Singapore. The Authoritarian regime that ruled them allowed for immense economic growth but out of that growth came cries for reform. I believe they have recently held their first democratic elections.
I think you're still underestimating the average intelligence of the chinese. They are for the most part aware of how the chinese government acts and the authoritarian measures it uses against the people. They're apathetic for the most part. I can't see how getting a a better education would some how improve that knowledge that they already have.
China may face a revolt and have to change, but I think it will be based more on economic factors, rather than cultural ones.
The prevailing sentiment is highly discouraging. Very few students want to do real work anymore; despite the recent deflation of Wall Street, many of my peers (especially those quantitatively inclined) are aiming for positions within investment banks and consulting firms. I myself, am no exception - I look forward to a starting six-figure salary for what can kindly described as clerical work. Who am I to say no to that offer?
If you are going to whore yourself out to the same energies you find disturbing, you are either intellectually dishonest, or a pig.
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary.
A junior analyst at a bulge-bracket IB makes around 60k-100k salary + equivalent bonus. Bonuses in IB are insane.
My old flatmate worked in the position you described for a major IB here in London. His salary was indeed very high, but his hourly wage was lower than when he worked in Burger King. And that was before they cut his bonus due to the crisis. Also, IB bankers have one of the highest suicide rates in the population. There is a reason why they pay that much.
It's a pretty shitty job, to be honest. But it is one of the only sure-fire ways to get rich. Most people only work two years at an IB before moving to a consulting firm or a hedge-fund.
IB exit ops are PE or VC, it's usually S&T that goes on to work at HFs
Could you please decipher these terms? I've tried googling them but am still not sure.
IB = investment banker
PE = Private Equity
VC = Venture Capitalist
HF = Hedge Fund
S&T?? not sure, i would have added mergers and acquisitions.
anyway. i was at an IB for 2 years and now working in consulting. but like others have said, it pays a crap loads but the $/hour is pretty low.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom.
Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income.
Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution.
Like I said, we saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. If you ask any chinese students studying in the states about chinas authoritarianism, the majority of them basically give you a response of "it works, why complain" or "I'm happy, why change". They are 100% aware of its lack of freedom in comparison to the united states, they just don't care for the most part.
Countries like japan, korea, and china have cultures that emphasize fitting in as well. It's not a normal thought process to just rebel for most of them, regardless of education.
You know how we have the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"?
In china, they have a saying that goes "the raised nail gets the hammer"
That is totally wrong, chinese people do hate the government, its just the government just squishes any sort of revolution be it either internet or on the streets. I have many chinese foreign students that say the same. They understand the situation, but its very hard when you have a government that is willing to pull tanks on you when your just holding a sign.
The Chinese people do not hate their government, the majority anyway. I've lived their for 9 years, and the general attitude towards the government is one of support. Sure there might have been some disagreements here or there, but the Chinese people as a whole definitely do not hate their government. (Perhaps it's because of the censorship or oppression of all opposing thoughts) I'm not saying I adore the Chinese government, I'm actually starting to see its flaws after living in a democratic country. In my opinion, the reason for China's success is its hardworking population and an efficient government. Being in such a competitive environment, a Chinese person has to work so much harder than an American just to survive, and this produces a very capable and talented nation.
On December 06 2010 14:02 woowoo wrote: Countries with a lot of ressources don't need democracy, in China, the people is the main ressource, democracy will come or the country will fail.
i'm sorry but that sounds like a whole load of contradiction right there.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom.
Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income.
Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution.
Like I said, we saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. If you ask any chinese students studying in the states about chinas authoritarianism, the majority of them basically give you a response of "it works, why complain" or "I'm happy, why change". They are 100% aware of its lack of freedom in comparison to the united states, they just don't care for the most part.
Countries like japan, korea, and china have cultures that emphasize fitting in as well. It's not a normal thought process to just rebel for most of them, regardless of education.
You know how we have the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"?
In china, they have a saying that goes "the raised nail gets the hammer"
That is totally wrong, chinese people do hate the government, its just the government just squishes any sort of revolution be it either internet or on the streets. I have many chinese foreign students that say the same. They understand the situation, but its very hard when you have a government that is willing to pull tanks on you when your just holding a sign.
The Chinese people do not hate their government, the majority anyway. I've lived their for 9 years, and the general attitude towards the government is one of support. Sure there might have been some disagreements here or there, but the Chinese people as a whole definitely do not hate their government. (Perhaps it's because of the censorship or oppression of all opposing thoughts) I'm not saying I adore the Chinese government, I'm actually starting to see its flaws after living in a democratic country. In my opinion, the reason for China's success is its hardworking population and an efficient government. Being in such a competitive environment, a Chinese person has to work so much harder than an American just to survive, and this produces a very capable and talented nation.
i agree with your point that the majority of Chinese citizens does not detest the government. most of my relatives in China support the ambitions of the government and trust in their ability to further improve their living standard, just like they have done over the past decade.
your analogy reminds me of Code Geass' Britannia, only the strongest survive. heh
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom.
Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income.
Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution.
Like I said, we saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. If you ask any chinese students studying in the states about chinas authoritarianism, the majority of them basically give you a response of "it works, why complain" or "I'm happy, why change". They are 100% aware of its lack of freedom in comparison to the united states, they just don't care for the most part.
Countries like japan, korea, and china have cultures that emphasize fitting in as well. It's not a normal thought process to just rebel for most of them, regardless of education.
You know how we have the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"?
In china, they have a saying that goes "the raised nail gets the hammer"
I'm sorry I should have made my point clearer.
What I meant to get across is that China won't be able to afford to hammer down the nail without destroying all they have worked towards. When the economic future of a country rests on the shoulders of the people it's the people who have the final say in policy.
If it comes down to elections or economic instability Democracy prevails.
A nice example is Singapore. The Authoritarian regime that ruled them allowed for immense economic growth but out of that growth came cries for reform. I believe they have recently held their first democratic elections.
I think you're still underestimating the average intelligence of the chinese. They are for the most part aware of how the chinese government acts and the authoritarian measures it uses against the people. They're apathetic for the most part. I can't see how getting a a better education would some how improve that knowledge that they already have.
China may face a revolt and have to change, but I think it will be based more on economic factors, rather than cultural ones.
And in Singapore the population was well aware of all the good the regime was doing for the progress of country but still demanded elections. And do you know why they got them? Because the leaders knew it would mean the end of the progress and stability within the country.
Also it's not the quality of education that counts it's the amount of people who have access to it.
I'm not talking about the current middle class in China who were educated 30 years ago. I'm talking about the educated youth upon whom the future of the country rests. I highly doubt the future government of China would crack down on these guys.
The prevailing sentiment is highly discouraging. Very few students want to do real work anymore; despite the recent deflation of Wall Street, many of my peers (especially those quantitatively inclined) are aiming for positions within investment banks and consulting firms. I myself, am no exception - I look forward to a starting six-figure salary for what can kindly described as clerical work. Who am I to say no to that offer?
If you are going to whore yourself out to the same energies you find disturbing, you are either intellectually dishonest, or a pig.
Fuck you either way, scum.
As much as I didn't like the post, I don't see how he's being intellectually dishonest. Maybe he's a pig, but I won't say until I see the tail. Everyone's subject to their own risk-aversion and priorities; who are you to tell him to pursue other work. He may find it disturbing, he never said he couldn't live with it. Do you take action every time something doesn't live up to your ideals?
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom.
Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income.
Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution.
Like I said, we saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. If you ask any chinese students studying in the states about chinas authoritarianism, the majority of them basically give you a response of "it works, why complain" or "I'm happy, why change". They are 100% aware of its lack of freedom in comparison to the united states, they just don't care for the most part.
Countries like japan, korea, and china have cultures that emphasize fitting in as well. It's not a normal thought process to just rebel for most of them, regardless of education.
You know how we have the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"?
In china, they have a saying that goes "the raised nail gets the hammer"
I'm sorry I should have made my point clearer.
What I meant to get across is that China won't be able to afford to hammer down the nail without destroying all they have worked towards. When the economic future of a country rests on the shoulders of the people it's the people who have the final say in policy.
If it comes down to elections or economic instability Democracy prevails.
A nice example is Singapore. The Authoritarian regime that ruled them allowed for immense economic growth but out of that growth came cries for reform. I believe they have recently held their first democratic elections.
I think you're still underestimating the average intelligence of the chinese. They are for the most part aware of how the chinese government acts and the authoritarian measures it uses against the people. They're apathetic for the most part. I can't see how getting a a better education would some how improve that knowledge that they already have.
China may face a revolt and have to change, but I think it will be based more on economic factors, rather than cultural ones.
And in Singapore the population was well aware of all the good the regime was doing for the progress of country but still demanded elections. And do you know why they got them? Because the leaders knew it would mean the end of the progress and stability within the country.
Also it's not the quality of education that counts it's the amount of people who have access to it.
I'm not talking about the current middle class in China who were educated 30 years ago. I'm talking about the educated youth upon whom the future of the country rests. I highly doubt the future government of China would crack down on these guys.
Except there is no need to crack down on them in the first place; people understand what's going on but they also believe in whats going on is the right course for the country. It would take a lot to make the average Chinese to say democracy is the way to go. More likely, they'll blame to current leader and demand a change in that regards, but not the tearing down of the Communist Party.
As for your education argument, that would be applicable here if Chinese students weren't incredibly involved in politics and current events. The internet more or less is a great equalizer until the education system is better established in China.
The prevailing sentiment is highly discouraging. Very few students want to do real work anymore; despite the recent deflation of Wall Street, many of my peers (especially those quantitatively inclined) are aiming for positions within investment banks and consulting firms. I myself, am no exception - I look forward to a starting six-figure salary for what can kindly described as clerical work. Who am I to say no to that offer?
If you are going to whore yourself out to the same energies you find disturbing, you are either intellectually dishonest, or a pig.
Fuck you either way, scum.
That seems like a ban-level rant if I've ever seen one .
I think you shouldn't trust his assumption that he'll be doing "clerical" work... first of all he hasn't landed and job and secondly if it were really so easy then it would be open to less trained individuals and salary would go down. I'll say one thing for America... it may be possible to be complacent but it is equally possible to work as hard as you damn want here. There is so much opportunity and support for anyone truly creative or with sufficient inner drive.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life.
I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great.
"Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life.
I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great.
"Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion.
My point exactly, "Right now things are great"
However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street.
What happens when China heavy handed government starts getting in the way of trade or contraversial public policy. What we must remember is the current governmental organisation has done a great job getting their country populace out of the paddy fields and into the factories but the step up to where the majority of the population are working white collar jobs is yet to come and when it does it's bringing the winds of change with it.
Except there is no need to crack down on them in the first place; people understand what's going on but they also believe in whats going on is the right course for the country. It would take a lot to make the average Chinese to say democracy is the way to go. More likely, they'll blame to current leader and demand a change in that regards, but not the tearing down of the Communist Party.
As for your education argument, that would be applicable here if Chinese students weren't incredibly involved in politics and current events. The internet more or less is a great equalizer until the education system is better established in China.
While what you say is true in the current political climate surrounding China it will definatly not be the case in the future. The point you make about demanding a change in leadership is the greatest part of social revolution. And the population demanding a change in leadership is the hallmark of democratic progress.
I will say once again, once the people of China have a chance to reap the rewards of the cash injection into the public sector (see 30-40 years time) they will have been brought up in a globalized society where a heavy handed government has no place. Just look at the amount of libralisation it has taken for China to reach this point and their still far behind the US in some key aspects of social development.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life.
I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great.
"Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion.
My point exactly, "Right now things are great"
However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street.
What happens when China heavy handed government starts getting in the way of trade or contraversial public policy. What we must remember is the current governmental organisation has done a great job getting their country populace out of the paddy fields and into the factories but the step up to where the majority of the population are working white collar jobs is yet to come and when it does it's bringing the winds of change with it.
" However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. "
This is a rather damning statement for you to say, considering you too are arguing about the future political motivations of the country, only your reasoning is based off of nothing but conjecture.
We do not compete on level playing field. We have so many environmental and worker regulation laws that they do not have. China is investing in natural resources all over the world. THEY ARE DRILLING IN THE GULF OF MEXICO WHILE OBAMA SAYS WE CANT.
That is totally wrong, chinese people do hate the government, its just the government just squishes any sort of revolution be it either internet or on the streets. I have many chinese foreign students that say the same. They understand the situation, but its very hard when you have a government that is willing to pull tanks on you when your just holding a sign.
Funny, because I have the exact OPPOSITE experience in China, and I spend a good 4 months there each year. The average Chinese person doesn't place too much emphasis on ideas about absolute freedom or liberty or whatnot. They DO care that the government is leading the nation to greater prominence internationally.
I had a Beijing taxi driver talk to me for an entire 20 minute drive about how awesome the government was for it's role in advancing the economy. His argument was that nowhere else in the world could anybody see more automobiles. That may be an exaggeration, but it was evident he was very supportive of government policies.
Sure, people crack jokes at the governments expense a lot, but it's never really inflammatory. They accept censorship and the like, so long as the government continues to help China forge its way forward.
From my experience in China, this is pretty much true. I said this before in some other thread, but the people in China, for the most part, really just don't care about freedom of speech and the like.
To the OP: I don't know why you had to put the whole going to an IVY and your whole "Im going to make six figures right after" bit, it doesn't contribute to the topic at all. I get you were trying to put an example to number 4 but it just came off as a way for you to brag.
Something to note though on this topic: Communist China especially during Mao Zedong's leadership was, to say the least, a lot of fake bluffing. During the Industrial Revolution (or great leap forward): propaganda was everywhere talking about the progress China was making and how it was quickly being a world power. There was a lot of fake statistics and in actuality, the standard of living quickly went down and there was actually a famine.
Now, I'm not saying that the same thing is happening here, obviously there is truth to how much China is making because we (The U.S.) borrow money from the wealthy country. However I am still looking at China as very showy and prideful and therefore any claims to things like a nuclear reactor are taken with a grain of salt. I mean just look at the beijing olympics, extremely flashy, and they truly aimed to take the olympics (which they did and had the most golds). However not with a lot of questionable scandals, there were tons of underage participants which the government helped fake, and girls who were actually boys and other things you can dig up. Because of things like this, it's fair to assume that their progress may not actually be as awesome as it seems. And with billions of people to take care of, I would hope their resources would be used to raise the average standard of living.
Again to clarify: I'm not trying to bag on China and say they are showoffs, but they are definitely nationalists that are very proud of their heritage. And just because they may eventually rise and be just as industrialized or more industrialized than us does not mean our country has "fallen". As much as I get what the OP is saying I think there are bigger things to worry about... like North Korea
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life.
I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great.
"Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion.
My point exactly, "Right now things are great"
However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street.
What happens when China heavy handed government starts getting in the way of trade or contraversial public policy. What we must remember is the current governmental organisation has done a great job getting their country populace out of the paddy fields and into the factories but the step up to where the majority of the population are working white collar jobs is yet to come and when it does it's bringing the winds of change with it.
" However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. "
This is a rather damning statement for you to say, considering you too are arguing about the future political motivations of the country, only your reasoning is based off of nothing but conjecture.
No, not conjecture. I'm forming a hypothesis based on historical trends and wherever there has been industrilasation social reform follows. The best example of this is the Great British industrial revolution in the 18th-19th century. It brought about a new class "the middle class" who became wealthy and they demanded change to the traditional process of only the Aristocracy (the ruling class) being able to decide governmental policy. And they got it, a group of people overturned a tradition that dated back almost 1000 years.
Funnily enough last year I had to write a paper on Political reform in authoriterian states and chose Singapore as my case study. My reasoning is based on many hours studying the political and historical views of some of the greatest thinkers on the subject and my own thesis which was formed from this information.
I'm a born-and-bred American, but after having spent some time in East Asia the one difference in culture that sticks out the most is that this side of the world is hungry. They are hungry for progress, hungry for power, hungry for wealth: This side of the world is in it not just to catch up, but to surpass. You can literally feel the drive to get there pulsing from some communities. While I'm loathe to make broad generalizations, every day I am more convinced that Americans with all their riches grow fatter and more complacent, while east Asians are ravenous for success.
Didn't read the whole thread so sorry if someone has already addressed these points but:
The first problem here is that China's economy is one of the most stimulated ever. The whole thing is basically propped up by huge amounts of government spending. China's economy relies on the manufacturing opportunities that come from overseas because of its cheap labor. Labor that is kept cheap by the government which controls interest rates with power that makes the Fed here look like a pussy.
Now that's not to say that the Chinese can not solve these problems. However right now it looks unlikely they will. I think they recently abolished the agriculture tax but I can tell you farmers in China are not happy right now, and the power in China ultimately comes from these farmers. Just look at Mao ZiDong's rise to power.
People need to stop with these ideas that China can somehow acquire the US through the buying of its debt. China has its own economic problems to deal with and are not anywhere near where the US media makes them out to be in terms of a threat.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life.
I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great.
"Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion.
My point exactly, "Right now things are great"
However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street.
What happens when China heavy handed government starts getting in the way of trade or contraversial public policy. What we must remember is the current governmental organisation has done a great job getting their country populace out of the paddy fields and into the factories but the step up to where the majority of the population are working white collar jobs is yet to come and when it does it's bringing the winds of change with it.
" However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. "
This is a rather damning statement for you to say, considering you too are arguing about the future political motivations of the country, only your reasoning is based off of nothing but conjecture.
No, not conjecture. I'm forming a hypothesis based on historical trends and wherever there has been industrilasation social reform follows. The best example of this is the Great British industrial revolution in the 18th-19th century. It brought about a new class "the middle class" who became wealthy and they demanded change to the traditional process of only the Aristocracy (the ruling class) being able to decide governmental policy. And they got it, a group of people overturned a tradition that dated back almost 1000 years.
Funnily enough last year I had to write a paper on Political reform in authoriterian states and chose Singapore as my case study. My reasoning is based on many hours studying the political and historical views of some of the greatest thinkers on the subject and my own thesis which was formed from this information.
EDIT: I'm also horribly Dyslexic ><
The already IS a rising middle class in china, and things are exactly the same. I don't know how you can just dismiss Tienanmen square as if it doesn't have any correlation. Educated college students and educated citizens in general(most likely coming from middle class familes) demanded reform, and they even had a moderate amount of support in the government (Zhou Enlai and those who supported his power struggle). Then the Chinese government had them slaughtered. That was a call to reform right there, and it was stamped out almost immediately and covered up. I just don't see how you this situation will be ANY different based solely on a burgeoning middle class, when history shows that economic inequality or a dire economic situation, are far more motivational forces for people demanding change.
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life.
I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great.
"Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion.
My point exactly, "Right now things are great"
However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street.
What happens when China heavy handed government starts getting in the way of trade or contraversial public policy. What we must remember is the current governmental organisation has done a great job getting their country populace out of the paddy fields and into the factories but the step up to where the majority of the population are working white collar jobs is yet to come and when it does it's bringing the winds of change with it.
" However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. "
This is a rather damning statement for you to say, considering you too are arguing about the future political motivations of the country, only your reasoning is based off of nothing but conjecture.
No, not conjecture. I'm forming a hypothesis based on historical trends and wherever there has been industrilasation social reform follows. The best example of this is the Great British industrial revolution in the 18th-19th century. It brought about a new class "the middle class" who became wealthy and they demanded change to the traditional process of only the Aristocracy (the ruling class) being able to decide governmental policy. And they got it, a group of people overturned a tradition that dated back almost 1000 years.
Funnily enough last year I had to write a paper on Political reform in authoriterian states and chose Singapore as my case study. My reasoning is based on many hours studying the political and historical views of some of the greatest thinkers on the subject and my own thesis which was formed from this information.
EDIT: I'm also horribly Dyslexic ><
The already IS a rising middle class in china, and things are exactly the same. I don't know how you can just dismiss Tienanmen square as if it doesn't have any correlation. Educated college students and educated citizens in general(most likely coming from middle class familes) demanded reform, and they even had a moderate amount of support in the government (Zhou Enlai and those who supported his power struggle). Then the Chinese government had them slaughtered. That was a call to reform right there, and it was stamped out almost immediately and covered up. I just don't see how you this situation will be ANY different based solely on a burgeoning middle class, when history shows that economic inequality or a dire economic situation, are far more motivational forces for people demanding change.
I never dismissed the Tienammen square masacre but I avoided adressing it because it really has no place in this argument. 20 years ago the politcal scene within China looked very different compared to today, just like in 20 more years it will look equally as foreign. You can't transpose that incident into a discussion about Chinas political future as the country is developing so fast in so many areas. As has been made clear over the last 20 years China liberalised it's economic policies and has embraced the trend of globalisation here by making it a major player on the world scene. They have to much invested in the outside world to commit such atrocities again.
And I know that there is a rising middle class in China. But it is RISING and at the same pace that China is modernising it's workforce. And because Chinas new wealth is just beginning to trickle down to the masses it will be a while before we see a class with the political and economic clout required for social upheaval of the political system. And don't expect it to be a civil war or anything absurd like that. When the time comes it will be Chinas leaders who step down from their office for the good of the nation they sacrificed so much to build.
There was a really interesting article in a Time magazine by Fareed Zakaria a few weeks ago analysing Chinas economic growth and what it meant for America. I'm sure you would find it illuminating (I think he even adressed the atrocity in Tienammen square).
(educated does not = successful, you need economic muscle as well as intelligence. Which is why students have no power to influence governmental proceedings at his time)
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life.
I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great.
"Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion.
My point exactly, "Right now things are great"
However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street.
What happens when China heavy handed government starts getting in the way of trade or contraversial public policy. What we must remember is the current governmental organisation has done a great job getting their country populace out of the paddy fields and into the factories but the step up to where the majority of the population are working white collar jobs is yet to come and when it does it's bringing the winds of change with it.
" However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. "
This is a rather damning statement for you to say, considering you too are arguing about the future political motivations of the country, only your reasoning is based off of nothing but conjecture.
No, not conjecture. I'm forming a hypothesis based on historical trends and wherever there has been industrilasation social reform follows. The best example of this is the Great British industrial revolution in the 18th-19th century. It brought about a new class "the middle class" who became wealthy and they demanded change to the traditional process of only the Aristocracy (the ruling class) being able to decide governmental policy. And they got it, a group of people overturned a tradition that dated back almost 1000 years.
Funnily enough last year I had to write a paper on Political reform in authoriterian states and chose Singapore as my case study. My reasoning is based on many hours studying the political and historical views of some of the greatest thinkers on the subject and my own thesis which was formed from this information.
EDIT: I'm also horribly Dyslexic ><
The already IS a rising middle class in china, and things are exactly the same. I don't know how you can just dismiss Tienanmen square as if it doesn't have any correlation. Educated college students and educated citizens in general(most likely coming from middle class familes) demanded reform, and they even had a moderate amount of support in the government (Zhou Enlai and those who supported his power struggle). Then the Chinese government had them slaughtered. That was a call to reform right there, and it was stamped out almost immediately and covered up. I just don't see how you this situation will be ANY different based solely on a burgeoning middle class, when history shows that economic inequality or a dire economic situation, are far more motivational forces for people demanding change.
I never dismissed the Tienammen square masacre but I avoided adressing it because it really has no place in this argument. 20 years ago the politcal scene within China looked very different compared to today, just like in 20 more years it will look equally as foreign. You can't transpose that incident into a discussion about Chinas political future as the country is developing so fast in so many areas. As has been made clear over the last 20 years China liberalised it's economic policies and has embraced the trend of globalisation here by making it a major player on the world scene. They have to much invested in the outside world to commit such atrocities again.
And I know that there is a rising middle class in China. But it is RISING and at the same pace that China is modernising it's workforce. And because Chinas new wealth is just beginning to trickle down to the masses it will be a while before we see a class with the political and economic clout required for social upheaval of the political system. And don't expect it to be a civil war or anything absurd like that. When the time comes it will be Chinas leaders who step down from their office for the good of the nation they sacrificed so much to build.
There was a really interesting article in a Time magazine by Fareed Zakaria a few weeks ago analysing Chinas economic growth and what it meant for America. I'm sure you would find it illuminating (I think he even adressed the atrocity in Tienammen square).
It was a very good article.
The recent BS china has employed in Tibet has been an absolute shit show. It's really not much different from the 1989 protests. China is absolutely willing to commit further atrocities.
And even assuming your scenario is correct about the trickle down of wealth increasing the clout of the average citizen, I think you're putting far too much faith in the leaders of the communist party. The party is loaded with corruption and cronyism, and there is no way that they would give up their cushy positions for the betterment of the country.
The question is why America can't or refuses to compete. Four reasons:
1. Disproportionate spending related to Iraq/Afghanistan War 2. Subservience to it's grossly corrupt and inefficient service sector. 3. A perpetually distracted and permanently short-sighted Congress 4. A lazy and complacent public.
Number 4 is the most important factor.
I disagree. I think that number 3 is the most important factor. China, because of the way it's government is constructed, has the ability and opportunity to set long range economic goals, and long range policies for achieving those goals. This is not true in the United States, because of the short-sightedness of Congress. New administrations and majorities are brought in every 2/4/6 years, bringing new tax polices and changes in the role of government in the economy. If and when China catches the United States in terms of GDP at PPP per capita, I think that this will be the main reason. The United States government has no plan for how to facilitate growth through 2025; they're much more concerned with growing their poll numbers through the 2012 elections.
Also, you claim the service industry as "grossly corrupt and inefficient." Can you provide evidence for this? Personally, I would have to say that this is flat out wrong. While there are many factors that go into measuring productivity, most economists agree that worker productivity has risen with the decline in manufacturing jobs as those workers become educated and take service jobs.
^ I dunno. When I think of services I think of DMVs and government agencies. When OP said "grossly corrupt and inefficient" he meant the financial sector in America. You don't really need evidence for that...
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life.
I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great.
"Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion.
My point exactly, "Right now things are great"
However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street.
What happens when China heavy handed government starts getting in the way of trade or contraversial public policy. What we must remember is the current governmental organisation has done a great job getting their country populace out of the paddy fields and into the factories but the step up to where the majority of the population are working white collar jobs is yet to come and when it does it's bringing the winds of change with it.
" However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. "
This is a rather damning statement for you to say, considering you too are arguing about the future political motivations of the country, only your reasoning is based off of nothing but conjecture.
No, not conjecture. I'm forming a hypothesis based on historical trends and wherever there has been industrilasation social reform follows. The best example of this is the Great British industrial revolution in the 18th-19th century. It brought about a new class "the middle class" who became wealthy and they demanded change to the traditional process of only the Aristocracy (the ruling class) being able to decide governmental policy. And they got it, a group of people overturned a tradition that dated back almost 1000 years.
Funnily enough last year I had to write a paper on Political reform in authoriterian states and chose Singapore as my case study. My reasoning is based on many hours studying the political and historical views of some of the greatest thinkers on the subject and my own thesis which was formed from this information.
EDIT: I'm also horribly Dyslexic ><
The already IS a rising middle class in china, and things are exactly the same. I don't know how you can just dismiss Tienanmen square as if it doesn't have any correlation. Educated college students and educated citizens in general(most likely coming from middle class familes) demanded reform, and they even had a moderate amount of support in the government (Zhou Enlai and those who supported his power struggle). Then the Chinese government had them slaughtered. That was a call to reform right there, and it was stamped out almost immediately and covered up. I just don't see how you this situation will be ANY different based solely on a burgeoning middle class, when history shows that economic inequality or a dire economic situation, are far more motivational forces for people demanding change.
I never dismissed the Tienammen square masacre but I avoided adressing it because it really has no place in this argument. 20 years ago the politcal scene within China looked very different compared to today, just like in 20 more years it will look equally as foreign. You can't transpose that incident into a discussion about Chinas political future as the country is developing so fast in so many areas. As has been made clear over the last 20 years China liberalised it's economic policies and has embraced the trend of globalisation here by making it a major player on the world scene. They have to much invested in the outside world to commit such atrocities again.
And I know that there is a rising middle class in China. But it is RISING and at the same pace that China is modernising it's workforce. And because Chinas new wealth is just beginning to trickle down to the masses it will be a while before we see a class with the political and economic clout required for social upheaval of the political system. And don't expect it to be a civil war or anything absurd like that. When the time comes it will be Chinas leaders who step down from their office for the good of the nation they sacrificed so much to build.
There was a really interesting article in a Time magazine by Fareed Zakaria a few weeks ago analysing Chinas economic growth and what it meant for America. I'm sure you would find it illuminating (I think he even adressed the atrocity in Tienammen square).
It was a very good article.
The recent BS china has employed in Tibet has been an absolute shit show. It's really not much different from the 1989 protests. China is absolutely willing to commit further atrocities.
And even assuming your scenario is correct about the trickle down of wealth increasing the clout of the average citizen, I think you're putting far too much faith in the leaders of the communist party. The party is loaded with corruption and cronyism, and there is no way that they would give up their cushy positions for the betterment of the country.
Tibet is a weird situation. The 17 Point Agreement made between the PLA and the Dali Lama near the end of the Chinese Civil War granted China sovereignty but allowed for the region to remain autonomous. The Dali Lama later fled the country and renounced the agreement. China responded in kind.
The 2008 riots started with Tibetian attacks attacks against the Han Chinese in the area. That much is clear. Exact information illustrating the extent of China's crackdown is unclear. Outside sources estimate that roughly 1000 Tibetian rioters were detained with a portion sent to 're-education camps'.
China views Tibet as a separatist movement. Under the previously mentioned 17 Point Agreement, Tibet is technically under China's sovereign rule. Tibetans claim that the agreement is void due to the fact that it was obtained by force. That is largely irrelevant. Hawaii are also forcibly coerced into joining the United States, but so many mainland Americans have moved there that the remnants of Hawaii's separatist movement his been effectively silenced.
What America did to Hawaii is what China is doing to Tibet. More and more Han Chinese are populating the area to the point where a separatist sentiment will disappear.
No nation had recognized Tibet under the independent rule of the Dali Lama. However, during the Cold War, the US began using Tibet as a sticking point against China. The current Dali Lama is hopelessly in bed with the US.
What should happen is irrelevant. There is no such thing as a legitimate claim to independence. What will happen is the gradual assimilation of Tibet into mainland China. In 50 years time, Tibet will be to China what Hawaii is the the United States.
Taiwan, on the other hand, will likely remain independent from China. China is pragmatic enough to realize that the opportunity has long passed. China officially claims sovereignty over Taiwan, but that is merely an empty statement to save face. In given time, I fully expect China to 'officially' cede control. The relationship between the Taiwanese and Chinese is better than most people expect.
On December 06 2010 17:01 fearlessparagon wrote: ^ I dunno. When I think of services I think of DMVs and government agencies. When OP said "grossly corrupt and inefficient" he meant the financial sector in America. You don't really need evidence for that...
Well, when I think of the service industry I think of doctors, lawyers, professors, computer scientists, and yes, even financial analysts.
Despite the fact that SOME people are in the business of swindling idiots who want to throw some money at random stocks, most professionals in these fields provide valuable services that require a college or higher level education. Labeling the ENTIRE service industry as corrupt and inefficient when in fact there's only a minority of one particular area that is corrupt (but certainly not inefficient) is pretty misleading.
Although I'll have to agree with you that many government services are pretty inefficient. I hate the DMV.
On December 06 2010 17:03 Two_DoWn wrote: Number one reason I love the constant "oh my god the sky is falling china is going to dominate the united states in 20 years?"
They said the same thing about Japan in the 1980's. Whooooooops.
Gotta love short memories.
Same things have been said of many things many times throughout history. In some cases they were correct, in others wrong. What's your point?
Part of China's meteoric rise is within its huge population base - since it's still undergoing industrialization, it still has space to grow markets by expanding industrialization to more and more groups within the region to increasingly transform a foundation of rural peasants into "modern" development. However, this is not infinite - while it may shoot to the top, the main difficulty is actually staying there - people forget that these same statements were frequently made about Japan in around the 1980s, until Japan hit its peak in the 1990s and fell into a period of stagnation.
Plus, I don't agree with the sentiment that America is "fucked" if this happens, I don't see any massive catastrophe were this to happen anyways.
Well it's kinda sad because as i am 23, I have voted for 3 senators, and 1 president, All of whom said they would either, not go to war, get us out of a war, or end the war,(definitively) also eliminate the giant "national defense budget" Which is really just the Hire American's to police your country business, that our citizens finance, and certain individuals profit from.
Yet None of said public representatives did anything, it's all just a big joke on capital hill Let's see how rich we can get, and these guy's(and gals) are the pro gosu's of lying and stealing +getting rich. If an American politician is opening his/her mouth they are lying, it's a fact.
On December 06 2010 17:01 fearlessparagon wrote: ^ I dunno. When I think of services I think of DMVs and government agencies. When OP said "grossly corrupt and inefficient" he meant the financial sector in America. You don't really need evidence for that...
Well, when I think of the service industry I think of doctors, lawyers, professors, computer scientists, and yes, even financial analysts.
Despite the fact that SOME people are in the business of swindling idiots who want to throw some money at random stocks, most professionals in these fields provide valuable services that require a college or higher level education. Labeling the ENTIRE service industry as corrupt and inefficient when in fact there's only a minority of one particular area that is corrupt (but certainly not inefficient) is pretty misleading.
Although I'll have to agree with you that many government services are pretty inefficient. I hate the DMV.
Hm. You're right. I apologize for generalizing the entire service sector. I should have said financial sector. That said I do feel American doctors are overpaid. Physicians benefit too much from the free market. The health-care industry in general grossly exploits the fact that people will pay pretty much anything to keep from not dying.
Is this really a surprise? All it takes is the average Chinese's per capita economic production to be greater than roughly 25% of an American's to surpass the US in total economy. The GDP per capita difference between industrialized nations and third world nations is a combination of our success and their failures.
Once they started getting their act together, there's no way it is sustainable for Americans to out-earn the Chinese by such margins. And since their population is much higher, it's just inevitable for their economy to surpass the US's someday. Japan is different because their population is smaller than the US.
I know you high school kids can only think in black and white, zero-sum scenarios, but really, the modernization of China does not take away the ability for the United States to become successful.
Though the finance and banking industry in the United States have, in my opinion, an unsustainable business model, the United States still has the technological advantage in many fields such as pharmaceuticals and alternative energy. The U.S. needs to focus on pushing its lead in these technological sectors rather than trying to compete with China for labor-intensive manufacturing jobs.
If China doesn't let it's currency float then it then it is just another super massive bubble waiting to burst. It is sad really because the people have no real welfare to fall back on when things do go badly wrong.
But yeah sure, a country with a billion hard working enterprenuers is a scary and yet totally awe inspiring thing.
Overtake what? oil will have run out in 40 years or so we are told. The entire worlds economy will grind to a halt but at least America will have plenty of useless consumer junk , i guess thats still better than having a useless mass of paper money and government bonds that aren't worth anything.
No matter how much energy the green left think you can get out of solar or wind power , it will never be enough to replace the diesel engines on the massive trucks that carry around the shipping containers full of Chinese products or even the massive container ships that all run on diesel that bring that junk to our shores in the first place( 1 massive container ship = 50 MILLION cars : http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/ ).The world economy will be more local in 30 years , globalization will finally die.
Every economy is the world will be affected and war is a strong possibility.
On December 06 2010 17:01 fearlessparagon wrote: ^ I dunno. When I think of services I think of DMVs and government agencies. When OP said "grossly corrupt and inefficient" he meant the financial sector in America. You don't really need evidence for that...
Well, when I think of the service industry I think of doctors, lawyers, professors, computer scientists, and yes, even financial analysts.
Despite the fact that SOME people are in the business of swindling idiots who want to throw some money at random stocks, most professionals in these fields provide valuable services that require a college or higher level education. Labeling the ENTIRE service industry as corrupt and inefficient when in fact there's only a minority of one particular area that is corrupt (but certainly not inefficient) is pretty misleading.
Although I'll have to agree with you that many government services are pretty inefficient. I hate the DMV.
Hm. You're right. I apologize for generalizing the entire service sector. I should have said financial sector. That said I do feel American doctors are overpaid. Physicians benefit too much from the free market. The health-care industry in general grossly exploits the fact that people will pay pretty much anything to keep from not dying.
Your honesty is very refreshing, but I'm afraid I have to take issue with your claims again. Even most people in the financial sector do good work. People save for retirement through the services provided by stock brokers, they need loans to start business that are made cheaper through the advancement of financial services, etc. Doctors, since they are part of the free-market system as you pointed out, are paid exactly as much as their services are worth. Many hospitals are non-profit, and many of those that aren't are within driving distance of another hospital (providing competition). For-profit hospitals aren't often the only hospitals in an area because they would have to provide for too many medicare/medicaid patients (which isn't profitable).
Besides, the real issue is how this compares to the situation in China. If everyone in America could get a college degree and get one of these good jobs, this thread wouldn't exist. If the government could make a long term plan that would set economically sound tax and trade policies as well as making sure that kids from low income areas graduate high school and maybe even go to college, no one would have to worry about learning Mandarin or what the exchange rate is for USD to Chinese currency.
On December 06 2010 17:01 fearlessparagon wrote: ^ I dunno. When I think of services I think of DMVs and government agencies. When OP said "grossly corrupt and inefficient" he meant the financial sector in America. You don't really need evidence for that...
Well, when I think of the service industry I think of doctors, lawyers, professors, computer scientists, and yes, even financial analysts.
Despite the fact that SOME people are in the business of swindling idiots who want to throw some money at random stocks, most professionals in these fields provide valuable services that require a college or higher level education. Labeling the ENTIRE service industry as corrupt and inefficient when in fact there's only a minority of one particular area that is corrupt (but certainly not inefficient) is pretty misleading.
Although I'll have to agree with you that many government services are pretty inefficient. I hate the DMV.
Hm. You're right. I apologize for generalizing the entire service sector. I should have said financial sector. That said I do feel American doctors are overpaid. Physicians benefit too much from the free market. The health-care industry in general grossly exploits the fact that people will pay pretty much anything to keep from not dying.
Your honesty is very refreshing, but I'm afraid I have to take issue with your claims again. Even most people in the financial sector do good work. People save for retirement through the services provided by stock brokers, they need loans to start business that are made cheaper through the advancement of financial services, etc. Doctors, since they are part of the free-market system as you pointed out, are paid exactly as much as their services are worth. Many hospitals are non-profit, and many of those that aren't are within driving distance of another hospital (providing competition). For-profit hospitals aren't often the only hospitals in an area because they would have to provide for too many medicare/medicaid patients (which isn't profitable).
Besides, the real issue is how this compares to the situation in China. If everyone in America could get a college degree and get one of these good jobs, this thread wouldn't exist. If the government could make a long term plan that would set economically sound tax and trade policies as well as making sure that kids from low income areas graduate high school and maybe even go to college, no one would have to worry about learning Mandarin or what the exchange rate is for USD to Chinese currency.
Loans and financing are obviously a necessary service. The sort of financial products peddled to the average working American are pretty basic. You don't need a financial advisory to blindly invest in mutual funds. Most Americans shouldn't have their retirement funds in stocks at all - money you can't afford to lose should be in bonds.
Goldman Sachs is the largest corporation in the world - bigger than GM, bigger than Microsoft. I know what GM produces, I know what Microsoft produces. What does Goldman Sachs do? They just...make money and make money with other people's money and charge them a free. Every now and then they help finance an IPO. The middle man deserves a cut, but not one close to size that investment banks receive.
I'm of the opinion that healthcare should never be free market. The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world without even having the best. Whether hospitals are for or not for profit doesn't really matter.
On December 06 2010 10:29 meegrean wrote: Maybe the US should stop spending so much money on national defense... those are good money that could be used somewhere else.
But then again, China has its own issues too.
The question is why are we spending so much on defense. I don't think the EU is spending enough, on one hand, but where is all of our money going?
On December 06 2010 17:44 denzelz wrote: I know you high school kids can only think in black and white, zero-sum scenarios, but really, the modernization of China does not take away the ability for the United States to become successful.
Though the finance and banking industry in the United States have, in my opinion, an unsustainable business model, the United States still has the technological advantage in many fields such as pharmaceuticals and alternative energy. The U.S. needs to focus on pushing its lead in these technological sectors rather than trying to compete with China for labor-intensive manufacturing jobs.
The modernization of China doesn't take away the ability for the United States to be successful, and this is a point that many people need to take note of, but China's people are not going to stay in manufacturing jobs forever. In a few decades, Chinese workers will be writing software and not making toys; when that happens, they will be competing with other countries like the US for imported manufactured goods. If the US isn't growing, when China starts importing manufactured goods instead of exporting them the States might not be able to afford the price increase that comes with the increased competition. While this will PROBABLY be offset by advances in technology and other things, it's still worth considering that the growth of China into a country that resembles the US in its output could be bad for the US.
On December 06 2010 17:01 fearlessparagon wrote: ^ I dunno. When I think of services I think of DMVs and government agencies. When OP said "grossly corrupt and inefficient" he meant the financial sector in America. You don't really need evidence for that...
Well, when I think of the service industry I think of doctors, lawyers, professors, computer scientists, and yes, even financial analysts.
Despite the fact that SOME people are in the business of swindling idiots who want to throw some money at random stocks, most professionals in these fields provide valuable services that require a college or higher level education. Labeling the ENTIRE service industry as corrupt and inefficient when in fact there's only a minority of one particular area that is corrupt (but certainly not inefficient) is pretty misleading.
Although I'll have to agree with you that many government services are pretty inefficient. I hate the DMV.
Hm. You're right. I apologize for generalizing the entire service sector. I should have said financial sector. That said I do feel American doctors are overpaid. Physicians benefit too much from the free market. The health-care industry in general grossly exploits the fact that people will pay pretty much anything to keep from not dying.
To counter this it could be said that because of massive college debt doctors HAVE to make a lot
On December 06 2010 14:56 synapse wrote: From my experience in China, this is pretty much true. I said this before in some other thread, but the people in China, for the most part, really just don't care about freedom of speech and the like.
I wouldn't be so harsh. I would say they care less about freedom of speech and more about their social security/situation. However: I hear the "things are great" story often, yet I wonder why every year the number of (officially registered!) riots increase? ~3000 around 1992, and now we have something like 70000-80000 incidents per year. Going from really small stuff, often times started by local corruption (my father is Li Gang!) to big uprisings like in Xinjiang, Tibet or if I am not mistaken with the Hui people (at least I remember something happend in ~2006?).
There is are also a lot of economical problems. Banks are lending way to aggressiv and thus far the government failed to stop this. The housing/real estate market is already a bubble (around 65million houses vacant and no slow down in the construction industry?!) and corruption is as bad as always, despite the fact that the ccp started to execute top officials for minor embezzlement. Some industries are heavily disrupted by the government. At least to my knowledge there is no real hd streaming site (or has youku or somebody else finally implented it). Why would there be one? With the lack of competition and the rather weak broadband network (this is more planned than people think) there is no use for such a technology (welcome to the year 2010). The same goes for general media, due to censorship but market rules it is difficult to develop an industry (TV, Movies, Webapplications, Magazines) that can compete on the international market (lawl@baidu japan).
And yes, the chinese people are aware of this and the chinese netizens are very much active, despite all the censorship there are river crabs and grass mudhorses. Yes, it appears to have little effect, but it clearly shows dissatisfaction with the level of personal freedom as well as the injustice inside society.
TL;DR: China is on the rise, America is going down, BUT things aren't all that great in China either.
On December 06 2010 10:29 meegrean wrote: Maybe the US should stop spending so much money on national defense... those are good money that could be used somewhere else.
But then again, China has its own issues too.
The question is why are we spending so much on OFFENSE. I don't think the EU is spending enough, on one hand, but where is all of our money going?
There I fixed it for you =) Wars are expensive as hell. Denmark has played a VERY small part in the wars in afghanistan and Iraq and its still taking a heavy toll on our relatively healthy economy. I think the common interpretation of the US military-budget is that it is a way to keep the US as the number one international power, despite losing the economic battle. The US with out its enormous military would honestly not be very different from Canada or Brazil, would it?
On December 06 2010 10:55 zak wrote: america spends more on the military than the top 20 countries...combined. America is going nowhere...unless we get nuked off.
Once WW3 hits the U.S. should rise out of the economic slump and back to being the steadfast superpower it is.
On December 06 2010 11:21 iloahz wrote: I wouldn't call it the "rise" of China. China has been the most advanced nation for the past few millennia except for maybe the last 300 years.
hihi there are two people(+me) in this thread that understand that China is not the biggest world power,by western standards. I see people saying that Uk dominated the world for three centuries before US.Try China dominated the world for two and a half millennia(yep Rome was nothing compared to China;)). The same way western people are convinced ancient Egypt was the beacon of civilization,when mayans were as if not more advanced.
China never conquered another nation though or basically did anything outside of China, they didn't dominate the world at all. Also India was, for long periods of time, the most advanced and the largest economy in the world.
On December 06 2010 10:29 happyness wrote: Disagree w/OP. You, along with many others, really don't understand economics. Just because China will eventually surpass the US eventually in no way shape or form means the US is going to "fall". Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Just because one economy rises doesn't mean another has to fall. On the contrary, when one economy does well other economies it interacts with also do well. It's in China's best interest to have the U.S. continue to do well economically.
Take the U.K. for example. 100 years ago it was the worlds leading power and now America is ahead of it by a long shot. But I think England is doing just fine. It's not like they are living in poverty.
China has 5 times as many people as the U.S. 5 times. If anything they should already be ahead of us, with that many people. We should all be happy that China is growing because that only means that literally millions of people will be pulled out of poverty
Fall as a world power, which Britain has. We honour them highly out of respect and tradition, not because of their power.
My point was that even though U.K. isn't a world power, it's still a good place to live and the people there have as high a standard of living as the U.S. The OP said america is fucked, which really isn't the case at all.
Really though I doubt China is going to become the superpower of the 21st Century, the US may lose its #1 spot but not to China.
China is in the process of creating the biggest bubble in history, they have an unparalleled gender imbalance, their entire economy is dependent on exports meaning if western companies decided to relocate everything to India or somewhere they would be fucked instantly, the vast majority of the population work in factories inhaling poisonous gases all day, eventually their population will be aging faster than Japan's, they don't have a blue water navy meaning they can't project their power, vast areas of the country are polluted and a lot of the water is poisoned and they've been fixing the books essentially, artificially enlarging their GDP and some top government officials even admit it.
The militairy industry in America is large and they have a huge lobby, the militairy industry complex is a problem. As for China, the one child policy might have saved them from overpopulation, but the large amount of +65ers(if you will) will increase tremendously at some point(think baby boom agers but multiply that by, well a large number)
Really though I doubt China is going to become the superpower of the 21st Century, the US may lose its #1 spot but not to China.
China is in the process of creating the biggest bubble in history, they have an unparalleled gender imbalance, their entire economy is dependent on exports meaning if western companies decided to relocate everything to India or somewhere they would be fucked instantly, the vast majority of the population work in factories inhaling poisonous gases all day, eventually their population will be aging faster than Japan's, they don't have a blue water navy meaning they can't project their power, vast areas of the country are polluted and a lot of the water is poisoned and they've been fixing the books essentially, artificially enlarging their GDP and some top government officials even admit it.[/QUOTE]
What sort of bubble are you talking about? Property values are fairly inflated, but 60% of homes in china are paid in full. The other 40% are financed with at least 30% down.
On December 06 2010 21:22 Consolidate wrote: What sort of bubble are you talking about? Property values are fairly inflated, but 60% of homes in china are paid in full. The other 40% are financed with at least 30% down.
I doubt Chinas economi will have a chance to grow much larger more until the peak oil comes. Its just around the corner and US will sink like a boat togheter with most countries.
I was learning chinese anyway. There is no stopping a wave, so you ride it and get further instead of drowning while trying to swim against it. I've learned english, swedish,german and bits of korean and finnish, so I'm sure I can get by.
Really this is just the end of certain countries taking other countries for a ride. The emerging markets are dissapearing and gradually transforming into nations capable of not just producing but also consuming and generating their own wealth. The real question is whether we can make the necessary changes fast enough or whether our slow governments will not be able to react before it's too late. We need somehow to be able to manufacture, grow, mine etc... as much as we consume.
On December 06 2010 14:56 synapse wrote: From my experience in China, this is pretty much true. I said this before in some other thread, but the people in China, for the most part, really just don't care about freedom of speech and the like.
I wouldn't be so harsh. I would say they care less about freedom of speech and more about their social security/situation. However: I hear the "things are great" story often, yet I wonder why every year the number of (officially registered!) riots increase? ~3000 around 1992, and now we have something like 70000-80000 incidents per year. Going from really small stuff, often times started by local corruption (my father is Li Gang!) to big uprisings like in Xinjiang, Tibet or if I am not mistaken with the Hui people (at least I remember something happend in ~2006?).
There is are also a lot of economical problems. Banks are lending way to aggressiv and thus far the government failed to stop this. The housing/real estate market is already a bubble (around 65million houses vacant and no slow down in the construction industry?!) and corruption is as bad as always, despite the fact that the ccp started to execute top officials for minor embezzlement. Some industries are heavily disrupted by the government. At least to my knowledge there is no real hd streaming site (or has youku or somebody else finally implented it). Why would there be one? With the lack of competition and the rather weak broadband network (this is more planned than people think) there is no use for such a technology (welcome to the year 2010). The same goes for general media, due to censorship but market rules it is difficult to develop an industry (TV, Movies, Webapplications, Magazines) that can compete on the international market (lawl@baidu japan).
And yes, the chinese people are aware of this and the chinese netizens are very much active, despite all the censorship there are river crabs and grass mudhorses. Yes, it appears to have little effect, but it clearly shows dissatisfaction with the level of personal freedom as well as the injustice inside society.
TL;DR: China is on the rise, America is going down, BUT things aren't all that great in China either.
This guy's post is legit. Even with the economical development that China has right now, there's still huge social issues. House prices going up, government corruption, general unhappiness especially among ethnic minorities, insane wage gaps, bad mental health, etc.
By no means is China on some sort of railroad track to being #1 in the world.
I have been to china 4 times this year for business reasons and my impression of the country´s drive towards bettering itself (reflected very much in each individual's dedication to work hard, for themselves and their country) match very well with what the OP is saying. Its gonna happen.
But I am waiting for a subsequent revolution, or evolution. One that I won't see in my lifetime, when the words "competing countries" go out the window and the world finds a new understanding of progress.
Basically I want to see the world stop thinking of its progress in terms of individual advances isolated under political boundaries but as a whole. Less us and them mentality and more everyone. I´m just a hippie I guess, but what sense does it make for our world to operate under political boundaries, with constant disputes.
On December 06 2010 14:56 synapse wrote: From my experience in China, this is pretty much true. I said this before in some other thread, but the people in China, for the most part, really just don't care about freedom of speech and the like.
I wouldn't be so harsh. I would say they care less about freedom of speech and more about their social security/situation. However: I hear the "things are great" story often, yet I wonder why every year the number of (officially registered!) riots increase? ~3000 around 1992, and now we have something like 70000-80000 incidents per year. Going from really small stuff, often times started by local corruption (my father is Li Gang!) to big uprisings like in Xinjiang, Tibet or if I am not mistaken with the Hui people (at least I remember something happend in ~2006?).
There is are also a lot of economical problems. Banks are lending way to aggressiv and thus far the government failed to stop this. The housing/real estate market is already a bubble (around 65million houses vacant and no slow down in the construction industry?!) and corruption is as bad as always, despite the fact that the ccp started to execute top officials for minor embezzlement. Some industries are heavily disrupted by the government. At least to my knowledge there is no real hd streaming site (or has youku or somebody else finally implented it). Why would there be one? With the lack of competition and the rather weak broadband network (this is more planned than people think) there is no use for such a technology (welcome to the year 2010). The same goes for general media, due to censorship but market rules it is difficult to develop an industry (TV, Movies, Webapplications, Magazines) that can compete on the international market (lawl@baidu japan).
And yes, the chinese people are aware of this and the chinese netizens are very much active, despite all the censorship there are river crabs and grass mudhorses. Yes, it appears to have little effect, but it clearly shows dissatisfaction with the level of personal freedom as well as the injustice inside society.
TL;DR: China is on the rise, America is going down, BUT things aren't all that great in China either.
This guy's post is legit. Even with the economical development that China has right now, there's still huge social issues. House prices going up, government corruption, general unhappiness especially among ethnic minorities, insane wage gaps, bad mental health, etc.
By no means is China on some sort of railroad track to being #1 in the world.
I agree to this from what my parents told me after they visited China this Summer. The economic developement and the technical progress is totally impressive, especially the rate of improvement on this sector (we visited China like 20 years ago). But the Chinese attitude will hinder their progress to world's #1 nation, as they are not willing to adapt certain things. Not only the social issues, which are obviously a obstacle when the people don't profit from economic progress and provoke inside aggressions. But also, Chinese don't sense their role in the context of the world the way they should. For example, it still seems almost impossible to contact with regular chinese people, because they refuse to learn and speak english (or any other foreign language of matter, but english would be the obvious choice because of both being prime world language and being very easy to learn, at least the basics). As long as they don't embrace the world with acceptance, they will always struggle at these points and lack of acceptance themselves.
On December 06 2010 23:09 kazansky wrote: For example, it still seems almost impossible to contact with regular chinese people, because they refuse to learn and speak english (or any other foreign language of matter, but english would be the obvious choice because of both being prime world language and being very easy to learn, at least the basics).
I don't agree. The amount of english schools and students is insane. While I am often times disappointed by the progress a lot of people, there is a huge and growing number of people in China who speak acceptable english.
On December 06 2010 23:09 kazansky wrote: For example, it still seems almost impossible to contact with regular chinese people, because they refuse to learn and speak english (or any other foreign language of matter, but english would be the obvious choice because of both being prime world language and being very easy to learn, at least the basics).
I don't agree. The amount of english schools and students is insane. While I am often times disappointed by the progress a lot of people, there is a huge and growing number of people in China who speak acceptable english.
Ok, then they have a certain hidden skill of dodging those. But as I mentioned, it's just second hand information. They said apart from the guides themselves, no one was capable of speaking english. And this goes for front offices in hotels, guides at museums and stuff like that. Maybe those who learn english are all sent abroad.
On December 06 2010 23:09 kazansky wrote: But also, Chinese don't sense their role in the context of the world the way they should. For example, it still seems almost impossible to contact with regular chinese people, because they refuse to learn and speak english (or any other foreign language of matter, but english would be the obvious choice because of both being prime world language and being very easy to learn, at least the basics). As long as they don't embrace the world with acceptance, they will always struggle at these points and lack of acceptance themselves.
ESL is huge in China. Cities have hundreds of private English schools; and students from Grade 1 to university must study English as a required subject. Virtually everyone speaks some level of English, and many companies have ESL hiring requirements.
On December 06 2010 23:09 kazansky wrote: For example, it still seems almost impossible to contact with regular chinese people, because they refuse to learn and speak english (or any other foreign language of matter, but english would be the obvious choice because of both being prime world language and being very easy to learn, at least the basics).
I don't agree. The amount of english schools and students is insane. While I am often times disappointed by the progress a lot of people, there is a huge and growing number of people in China who speak acceptable english.
Ok, then they have a certain hidden skill of dodging those. But as I mentioned, it's just second hand information. They said apart from the guides themselves, no one was capable of speaking english. And this goes for front offices in hotels, guides at museums and stuff like that. Maybe those who learn english are all sent abroad.
I'd say it depends. In a hotel were westerners are frequent the staff should speak english (haven't found a 4 or 5 star hotel where they don't). However this is maybe not the best example, as the hotel staff usually has the stuff they "need to know" and everything else is a waste of talent. Same goes for guides at musuems or parks. 95% of tourists have a tour guide who does all the work and the total amount of western tourists is so little that it just isn't necessary to hire staff that speaks decent english.
I would say that the amount of english speakers is still far lower compared to western countries, but you have to take a look at the history and factor in years and years of isolation. There is a strong desire to learn english, but the schoolsystem and the location of the country make this rather difficult. In time I think they will (and also want to) catch up. At least large parts of society, there is always a minority who believes that they don't need to learn a second language, but this part isn't, in my opinion, bigger than in any other country I have traveled so far.
/e I wouldn't say that virtually everyone speaks english. Thats not even true for university students (I studied in tianjin for a year), much less for the common folk. ESL indeed is huge, but compared to the total population this is not as big as the numbers would suggest. And the salary of an ESL teacher actually is dropping/is not really good anymore. Chinese people are starting to joke about it (Are you an english teacher or do you have a real job?) and with wages around 10000~20000 rmb I can see why.
On December 06 2010 23:09 kazansky wrote: For example, it still seems almost impossible to contact with regular chinese people, because they refuse to learn and speak english
Oh don't worry, soon enough we will all have to learn mandarin- Lets see how many of us westerners are able to become fluent .
I was in China last year. Not enough Chinese know English well enough such that you'd want to go too far off the heavily beaten path without an interpreter. If you go into a restaurant or cafe in a major city like Beijing or Shanghai, expect that no one will speak English.
On December 06 2010 10:20 Owarida wrote: What do you guys think about forced military service like SK has in America? Could help build some discipline, leadership, and national pride. All good things when considering growth of a nation.
I agree and disagree with this.
I agree with the statement that it would create leadership and national pride. Discipline, no. I served in the Navy and let me tell you, a good portion of the people in the military (I had plenty of time and experience with the other branches) are extremely undisciplined and if there is no leadership around can't keep their dick in their pants, literally.
I mostly disagree with this for a couple reasons.
1.)Forced military servitude is basically telling people that they are owned by the state. If they can force everyone to serve in the military, they can force you to do anything else they please. While this may not actually happen, the precedent is set and open for them (the government) to exploit.
2.)Our military budget is already too high, the more people we have forced into the military the more our government will try to expand the empire. So it is just more money down the drain that is not being invested in maintaining or improving the infrastructure of our country.
Many things could be said, but these are what stick out most to me.
I have been to china 4 times this year for business reasons and my impression of the country´s drive towards bettering itself (reflected very much in each individual's dedication to work hard, for themselves and their country) match very well with what the OP is saying. Its gonna happen.
But I am waiting for a subsequent revolution, or evolution. One that I won't see in my lifetime, when the words "competing countries" go out the window and the world finds a new understanding of progress.
Basically I want to see the world stop thinking of its progress in terms of individual advances isolated under political boundaries but as a whole. Less us and them mentality and more everyone. I´m just a hippie I guess, but what sense does it make for our world to operate under political boundaries, with constant disputes.
I find myself torn between a couple beliefs when I read this. I have lately been trying to convince myself, that thinking like this is correct. I was raised in a very "Us vs Them" mentality kind of household (hopefully I worded that in a way you can understand) and I think statesmanship is a really good thing. Believing in your neighbors and the strength of your country is one of those things that is beaten into your head as a kid.
Really though, what defines neighbor?
With the invention of the internet, trans international flight, and the "shrinking" of the globe; I believe the whole world is my neighbor at this point and I really wish we could all try and reach a common goal. I doubt this will happen in my lifetime (as you said) but a lot of things have been deemed impossible in the past, and this could just be one of those things that happens before we know it.
On December 06 2010 23:09 kazansky wrote: For example, it still seems almost impossible to contact with regular chinese people, because they refuse to learn and speak english
Oh don't worry, soon enough we will all have to learn mandarin- Lets see how many of us westerners are able to become fluent .
This is not a true statement. English is the language of the world (even though its really hard to learn apparently and has a lot of holes) and this is something that will not change just because China's GDP is high than the US's. Most of Europe, parts of Africa, Russia, most of North America and quite a few places in South America have a very large portion of people that speak English at least at a basic level. There is no reason for China to not just learn English as well (their international employees and such already do).
If China doesn't tear itself apart in 50 years it deserves to overcome the United States in hard power. I don't think China will EVER be capable of holding the soft power that the United States holds.
On December 06 2010 23:09 kazansky wrote: For example, it still seems almost impossible to contact with regular chinese people, because they refuse to learn and speak english
Oh don't worry, soon enough we will all have to learn mandarin- Lets see how many of us westerners are able to become fluent .
This is not a true statement. English is the language of the world (even though its really hard to learn apparently and has a lot of holes) and this is something that will not change just because China's GDP is high than the US's. Most of Europe, parts of Africa, Russia, most of North America and quite a few places in South America have a very large portion of people that speak English at least at a basic level. There is no reason for China to not just learn English as well (their international employees and such already do).
French was the world's language for centuries,it changed with the shift of power,what makes you think its going to go otherwise with english?
On December 06 2010 09:51 infinitestory wrote: China has its own share of hurdles that it needs to go over first, including overpopulation, human rights issues, etc. which is delaying and will delay their rise for some time to come. But America needs to get its act together, and instead of acting like the status quo will be alright forever, we need to actually get something done. Knowing Chinese is going to be very useful in the next couple decades ;D
Overpopulation really isn't the problem. The solution to the problem is the issue China will need to deal with in the near future. The one child policy will lead to a rapidly aging workforce. Still, the policy if more favorable compared to India's electing to disregard overpopulation as a problem.
Human rights issues in China are both overblown by the West and underestimated by the Chinese public. With the supreme goal of maintaining economic stability, China has little tolerance for unrest and often deals with it brutally. However, actual life in China doesn't feel like living under a police state.
While corruption in is China is prevalent at the local level, the upper echelons of the government are fairly unaffected. The official policy and attitudes against corruption betrays no tolerance for such behavior. Corrupt politicians usually face Draconian measures.
This last point is wrong. Corruption is not only local but systemic and reaches up into the peaks of Party Central. I'm not sure what you meant by "9 politburos" but I'm guessing you were referring to the Politburo Standing Committee. There is a great deal of controversy over the business affairs of current and former PSC members' family (see for instance Wen Jiabao's wife, also, Jiang Zhemin's family). There is no way corruption at that level gets reported, and your claim that "the upper echelons of government are fairly unaffected" is false. For more on this, see Richard McGregor's "The Party."
Also, another point I'd have to disagree on is the "draconian measures" put in place to fight corruption. Every year, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao rally against corruption, promising change and sometimes even political reform--see Wen's controversial speech from earlier this year. However in actual practice there has been little movement against corruption. The few executions/prison terms you see of party bosses caught for embezzlement are show trials and the result of political infighting, not a real measurement of progress. The best example of this is the sacking of Chen Liangyu, Shanghai's party boss (a politburo level position) in 2006. Most commentators believe his removal was the result of Hu/Wen's maneuvering against the "Shanghai Gang", a powerful bloc in the Party led by Hu's predecessor and political rival Jiang. Moreover, the Party's Discipline and Inspection Committee is a means of factional competition between elites (again, see the sacking of the Shanghai party secretary), not a body that is empowered with really cracking down on corruption in any meaningful way.
I think you are significantly underplaying the detriment corruption is having on the Party and its legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese public. That said, I think the upcoming Congress in 2012 might offer some promise for change.
OP is ignorant. The rise of China (which was inevitable) to Mexican levels of prosperity does not mean America is fucked or will fall, except in GDP rankings. The rise of China is unquestionably a good thing for the average American.
OP's perception of America's industrial base is also ignorant. America has the largest manufacturing output in the world, it's just that as a share of GDP, it has steadily declined over the past 50 years. What has taken its place? Industries with high human capital, e.g. the tech industry. This is a good thing, because it gives laborers more leverage (the capital is in labor's hands, not the owners), is a more productive use of capital and is immune from automation for the foreseeable future. I don't understand why some people pine for the days when everyone worked on the floor; those jobs require little skill and should be shipped out to poorer nations and eventually automated.
OP's perception of the laziness of America's workforce is likewise ignorant. Amongst developed countries, Americans generally rank at the top in terms of hours worked. In fact, it is well known that the income gaps between Americans and Europeans is largely due to the fact that Europeans work much less rather than any gap in productivity between the two.
On December 07 2010 03:27 domovoi wrote: OP's perception of the laziness of America's workforce is likewise ignorant. Amongst developed countries, Americans generally rank at the top in terms of hours worked. In fact, it is well known that the income gaps between Americans and Europeans is largely due to the fact that Europeans work much less rather than any gap in productivity between the two.
Yeah, that part of the OP bothered me as well. I've traveled quite a bit and talked to many people of different cultures, and as a by product of this, I've come to realize that Americans are some of the hardest working people in the world. A bit of a tangent, but we get a lot of shit for being obese, watching a lot of TV, etc, but thats a direct result of us working so damn much. The sense of entitlement the OP points out might be true of the current youth generation, but I think that is symptomatic of all Generation Y people--not just Americans.
On December 06 2010 23:09 kazansky wrote: For example, it still seems almost impossible to contact with regular chinese people, because they refuse to learn and speak english
Oh don't worry, soon enough we will all have to learn mandarin- Lets see how many of us westerners are able to become fluent .
This is not a true statement. English is the language of the world (even though its really hard to learn apparently and has a lot of holes) and this is something that will not change just because China's GDP is high than the US's. Most of Europe, parts of Africa, Russia, most of North America and quite a few places in South America have a very large portion of people that speak English at least at a basic level. There is no reason for China to not just learn English as well (their international employees and such already do).
French was the world's language for centuries,it changed with the shift of power,what makes you think its going to go otherwise with english?
French was never really the "world's language" so much as it was "Europe's language." France never had the same global imperialistic reach and power that Great Britain and the United States had/have had over the past 200+ years. English is the first global language.
On December 06 2010 23:09 kazansky wrote: For example, it still seems almost impossible to contact with regular chinese people, because they refuse to learn and speak english
Oh don't worry, soon enough we will all have to learn mandarin- Lets see how many of us westerners are able to become fluent .
This is not a true statement. English is the language of the world (even though its really hard to learn apparently and has a lot of holes) and this is something that will not change just because China's GDP is high than the US's. Most of Europe, parts of Africa, Russia, most of North America and quite a few places in South America have a very large portion of people that speak English at least at a basic level. There is no reason for China to not just learn English as well (their international employees and such already do).
French was the world's language for centuries,it changed with the shift of power,what makes you think its going to go otherwise with english?
French was never really the "world's language" so much as it was "Europe's language." France never had the same global imperialistic reach and power that Great Britain and the United States had/have had over the past 200+ years. English is the first global language.
On December 06 2010 23:09 kazansky wrote: For example, it still seems almost impossible to contact with regular chinese people, because they refuse to learn and speak english
Oh don't worry, soon enough we will all have to learn mandarin- Lets see how many of us westerners are able to become fluent .
This is not a true statement. English is the language of the world (even though its really hard to learn apparently and has a lot of holes) and this is something that will not change just because China's GDP is high than the US's. Most of Europe, parts of Africa, Russia, most of North America and quite a few places in South America have a very large portion of people that speak English at least at a basic level. There is no reason for China to not just learn English as well (their international employees and such already do).
French was the world's language for centuries,it changed with the shift of power,what makes you think its going to go otherwise with english?
French was never really the "world's language" so much as it was "Europe's language." France never had the same global imperialistic reach and power that Great Britain and the United States had/have had over the past 200+ years. English is the first global language.
check pre-WWI history.
Right, that's exactly my point. Before WWI, no one outside of Europe mattered. All of the global power was centralized there (aside from the US and, to some extent, Japan). By the time WW2 was over, Europe was no longer the center of global politics and power.
The US is in a crossroad and it has to make a decision on the sort of country it will be. Is it going to continue its highly unstable trickle down economics with inflated military and massive debt. This path is unstable because it is based on fake money and growth. It is also unstable socially because it requires the other 99% of people to think that they can reach that top 1%.
Or it could take the more stable path, which involves the creation of a more stable society. This is done by cutting military spending, which currently consumes 50% of the government budget. The savings should then be used to create real economy through investment in infrastructure (which includes education) and innovations (such as green technologies). All of this should encourage growth in the middle class.
By looking at the midterm results, it seems that top 1% is doing a great job in making sure that the US is still a trickle down economy. Like all great magicians, keeping the masses distracted through the use of entertainment and fear. Rome is burning and people are more concern about who is winning dancing with the stars. The scary thing is that this is happening all over the western world.
On December 07 2010 06:28 DJ_Amal wrote: The US is in a crossroad and it has to make a decision on the sort of country it will be. Is it going to continue its highly unstable trickle down economics with inflated military and massive debt. This path is unstable because it is based on fake money and growth. It is also unstable socially because it requires the other 99% of people to think that they can reach that top 1%.
Or it could take the more stable path, which involves the creation of a more stable society. This is done by cutting military spending, which currently consumes 50% of the government budget. The savings should then be used to create real economy through investment in infrastructure (which includes education) and innovations (such as green technologies). All of this should encourage growth in the middle class.
By looking at the midterm results, it seems that top 1% is doing a great job in making sure that the US is still a trickle down economy. Like all great magicians, keeping the masses distracted through the use of entertainment and fear. Rome is burning and people are more concern about who is winning dancing with the stars. The scary thing is that this is happening all over the western world.
Military spending is not 50% of the budget. It's about 20%.
More importantly, I'd argue that trickle down economics is what made the US what it is today. Economic crashes and recessions are nothing new. They've always fixed themselves. The last thing we need is for the government to step in and "fix" things.
On December 06 2010 23:09 kazansky wrote: For example, it still seems almost impossible to contact with regular chinese people, because they refuse to learn and speak english
Oh don't worry, soon enough we will all have to learn mandarin- Lets see how many of us westerners are able to become fluent .
This is not a true statement. English is the language of the world (even though its really hard to learn apparently and has a lot of holes) and this is something that will not change just because China's GDP is high than the US's. Most of Europe, parts of Africa, Russia, most of North America and quite a few places in South America have a very large portion of people that speak English at least at a basic level. There is no reason for China to not just learn English as well (their international employees and such already do).
French was the world's language for centuries,it changed with the shift of power,what makes you think its going to go otherwise with english?
French was never really the "world's language" so much as it was "Europe's language." France never had the same global imperialistic reach and power that Great Britain and the United States had/have had over the past 200+ years. English is the first global language.
check pre-WWI history.
Right, that's exactly my point. Before WWI, no one outside of Europe mattered. All of the global power was centralized there (aside from the US and, to some extent, Japan). By the time WW2 was over, Europe was no longer the center of global politics and power.
so you're pretty much saying that pre WWI Europe=world,and that french was Europe's language.I can see why you disagreed now.(ps:french was spoken outside of Europe too,russian/asians diplomatic relations from the 17th to the 20th century were moslty in french). Oh and just so you know,french wasnt just for international relations,as in most courts in Europe it was even more spoken than the country's language. /hijackthread off
On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote: As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life.
I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great.
"Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion.
My point exactly, "Right now things are great"
However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street.
What happens when China heavy handed government starts getting in the way of trade or contraversial public policy. What we must remember is the current governmental organisation has done a great job getting their country populace out of the paddy fields and into the factories but the step up to where the majority of the population are working white collar jobs is yet to come and when it does it's bringing the winds of change with it.
" However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. "
This is a rather damning statement for you to say, considering you too are arguing about the future political motivations of the country, only your reasoning is based off of nothing but conjecture.
No, not conjecture. I'm forming a hypothesis based on historical trends and wherever there has been industrilasation social reform follows. The best example of this is the Great British industrial revolution in the 18th-19th century. It brought about a new class "the middle class" who became wealthy and they demanded change to the traditional process of only the Aristocracy (the ruling class) being able to decide governmental policy. And they got it, a group of people overturned a tradition that dated back almost 1000 years.
Funnily enough last year I had to write a paper on Political reform in authoriterian states and chose Singapore as my case study. My reasoning is based on many hours studying the political and historical views of some of the greatest thinkers on the subject and my own thesis which was formed from this information.
EDIT: I'm also horribly Dyslexic ><
The already IS a rising middle class in china, and things are exactly the same. I don't know how you can just dismiss Tienanmen square as if it doesn't have any correlation. Educated college students and educated citizens in general(most likely coming from middle class familes) demanded reform, and they even had a moderate amount of support in the government (Zhou Enlai and those who supported his power struggle). Then the Chinese government had them slaughtered. That was a call to reform right there, and it was stamped out almost immediately and covered up. I just don't see how you this situation will be ANY different based solely on a burgeoning middle class, when history shows that economic inequality or a dire economic situation, are far more motivational forces for people demanding change.
I never dismissed the Tienammen square masacre but I avoided adressing it because it really has no place in this argument. 20 years ago the politcal scene within China looked very different compared to today, just like in 20 more years it will look equally as foreign. You can't transpose that incident into a discussion about Chinas political future as the country is developing so fast in so many areas. As has been made clear over the last 20 years China liberalised it's economic policies and has embraced the trend of globalisation here by making it a major player on the world scene. They have to much invested in the outside world to commit such atrocities again.
And I know that there is a rising middle class in China. But it is RISING and at the same pace that China is modernising it's workforce. And because Chinas new wealth is just beginning to trickle down to the masses it will be a while before we see a class with the political and economic clout required for social upheaval of the political system. And don't expect it to be a civil war or anything absurd like that. When the time comes it will be Chinas leaders who step down from their office for the good of the nation they sacrificed so much to build.
There was a really interesting article in a Time magazine by Fareed Zakaria a few weeks ago analysing Chinas economic growth and what it meant for America. I'm sure you would find it illuminating (I think he even adressed the atrocity in Tienammen square).
It was a very good article.
The recent BS china has employed in Tibet has been an absolute shit show. It's really not much different from the 1989 protests. China is absolutely willing to commit further atrocities.
And even assuming your scenario is correct about the trickle down of wealth increasing the clout of the average citizen, I think you're putting far too much faith in the leaders of the communist party. The party is loaded with corruption and cronyism, and there is no way that they would give up their cushy positions for the betterment of the country.
Tibet is a weird situation. The 17 Point Agreement made between the PLA and the Dali Lama near the end of the Chinese Civil War granted China sovereignty but allowed for the region to remain autonomous. The Dali Lama later fled the country and renounced the agreement. China responded in kind.
The 2008 riots started with Tibetian attacks attacks against the Han Chinese in the area. That much is clear. Exact information illustrating the extent of China's crackdown is unclear. Outside sources estimate that roughly 1000 Tibetian rioters were detained with a portion sent to 're-education camps'.
China views Tibet as a separatist movement. Under the previously mentioned 17 Point Agreement, Tibet is technically under China's sovereign rule. Tibetans claim that the agreement is void due to the fact that it was obtained by force. That is largely irrelevant. Hawaii are also forcibly coerced into joining the United States, but so many mainland Americans have moved there that the remnants of Hawaii's separatist movement his been effectively silenced.
What America did to Hawaii is what China is doing to Tibet. More and more Han Chinese are populating the area to the point where a separatist sentiment will disappear.
No nation had recognized Tibet under the independent rule of the Dali Lama. However, during the Cold War, the US began using Tibet as a sticking point against China. The current Dali Lama is hopelessly in bed with the US.
What should happen is irrelevant. There is no such thing as a legitimate claim to independence. What will happen is the gradual assimilation of Tibet into mainland China. In 50 years time, Tibet will be to China what Hawaii is the the United States.
Taiwan, on the other hand, will likely remain independent from China. China is pragmatic enough to realize that the opportunity has long passed. China officially claims sovereignty over Taiwan, but that is merely an empty statement to save face. In given time, I fully expect China to 'officially' cede control. The relationship between the Taiwanese and Chinese is better than most people expect.
I'm gonna have to disagree with the last part of this as well. While there are huge differences between China's relationship with Tibet and Taiwan, I don't think it is a given that Taiwan remain independent from China.
If anything Taiwan's domestic politics have shifted to be more favorable toward reunification. I think your prediction would've been more timely maybe 10 years ago when the KMT lost control to the pro-independent DPP under Chen Shui Bian. But the KMT has returned to power and surprisingly has warmed relations with China again. Hu Jintao has also adopted a middle road position regarding Taiwan, accepting the status quo--this cost him a lot politically because hawks within the party and the army wanted him to follow Jiang's hard-line stance toward Taiwan. Because of economic ties and the recent detente, the relationship between China and Taiwan will probably only get closer in the coming years. In a few decades who knows, perhaps they'll reunify.
On December 07 2010 06:28 DJ_Amal wrote: The US is in a crossroad and it has to make a decision on the sort of country it will be. Is it going to continue its highly unstable trickle down economics with inflated military and massive debt. This path is unstable because it is based on fake money and growth. It is also unstable socially because it requires the other 99% of people to think that they can reach that top 1%.
Or it could take the more stable path, which involves the creation of a more stable society. This is done by cutting military spending, which currently consumes 50% of the government budget. The savings should then be used to create real economy through investment in infrastructure (which includes education) and innovations (such as green technologies). All of this should encourage growth in the middle class.
By looking at the midterm results, it seems that top 1% is doing a great job in making sure that the US is still a trickle down economy. Like all great magicians, keeping the masses distracted through the use of entertainment and fear. Rome is burning and people are more concern about who is winning dancing with the stars. The scary thing is that this is happening all over the western world.
Military spending is not 50% of the budget. It's about 20%.
More importantly, I'd argue that trickle down economics is what made the US what it is today. Economic crashes and recessions are nothing new. They've always fixed themselves. The last thing we need is for the government to step in and "fix" things.
That and more than half the population is employed by small businesses with less than 1000 employees. It's nowhere near the 1% that Amal is implying. Trickle down does work.
It's only a matter of time that China will become the number one power, and I think there is nothing to fear because we will only benifit economically from it.
America needs to put its priorities first and that is the health and well being of its citizens. We need to invest in education which will be the key to having a competitive market in the furture do to the eventual decline of manufacturing as a percentage of GDP.
If we all just come together through Starcraft II we all should be A-OK :D
public is way to easily swayed by the media... they say global warning everybody panics.. we dont have to many nuclear reactors=cleanest and most efficient energy we could have solar panels and those wind energy things in the desert and be producing so much energy but the enviromentalist say no T.T basically the government is way to inefficient too T.T
It's been inevitable [maybe for the past 10-20 years] that China would eventually surpass the US as the world's leading economic superpower. Unfortunately for China, if they want a middle class comparable to the US in size, all the natural resources on our planet won't be enough for them to achieve this.
On a side note, throughout human history, shifts in global super powers usually lead to wars, so I hope this transition doesn't get us all killed.
On December 06 2010 09:51 infinitestory wrote: China has its own share of hurdles that it needs to go over first, including overpopulation, human rights issues, etc. which is delaying and will delay their rise for some time to come. But America needs to get its act together, and instead of acting like the status quo will be alright forever, we need to actually get something done. Knowing Chinese is going to be very useful in the next couple decades ;D
Overpopulation really isn't the problem. The solution to the problem is the issue China will need to deal with in the near future. The one child policy will lead to a rapidly aging workforce. Still, the policy if more favorable compared to India's electing to disregard overpopulation as a problem.
Human rights issues in China are both overblown by the West and underestimated by the Chinese public. With the supreme goal of maintaining economic stability, China has little tolerance for unrest and often deals with it brutally. However, actual life in China doesn't feel like living under a police state.
While corruption in is China is prevalent at the local level, the upper echelons of the government are fairly unaffected. The official policy and attitudes against corruption betrays no tolerance for such behavior. Corrupt politicians usually face Draconian measures.
This last point is wrong. Corruption is not only local but systemic and reaches up into the peaks of Party Central. I'm not sure what you meant by "9 politburos" but I'm guessing you were referring to the Politburo Standing Committee. There is a great deal of controversy over the business affairs of current and former PSC members' family (see for instance Wen Jiabao's wife, also, Jiang Zhemin's family). There is no way corruption at that level gets reported, and your claim that "the upper echelons of government are fairly unaffected" is false. For more on this, see Richard McGregor's "The Party."
Also, another point I'd have to disagree on is the "draconian measures" put in place to fight corruption. Every year, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao rally against corruption, promising change and sometimes even political reform--see Wen's controversial speech from earlier this year. However in actual practice there has been little movement against corruption. The few executions/prison terms you see of party bosses caught for embezzlement are show trials and the result of political infighting, not a real measurement of progress. The best example of this is the sacking of Chen Liangyu, Shanghai's party boss (a politburo level position) in 2006. Most commentators believe his removal was the result of Hu/Wen's maneuvering against the "Shanghai Gang", a powerful bloc in the Party led by Hu's predecessor and political rival Jiang. Moreover, the Party's Discipline and Inspection Committee is a means of factional competition between elites (again, see the sacking of the Shanghai party secretary), not a body that is empowered with really cracking down on corruption in any meaningful way.
I think you are significantly underplaying the detriment corruption is having on the Party and its legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese public. That said, I think the upcoming Congress in 2012 might offer some promise for change.
Let's not confuse corruption with incompetence. The fact that we don't hear about top party leaders's cash stash is not due to their virtue but rather political necessity. It doesn't mean that they don't trade in other means, power, position, opportunities, the list goes on.
And to be frank, I don't blame them, it's the way China works, find me someone who works for the government and is absolutely clean, I will say he is either a retard or lying. He is probably incompetent as well. How do you get shit done in China and not get your hand dirty?
You are writting this as if the evil comes from the party when it fact it is a model which the Chinese have chosen for their society. It has being like that for thousands of years, why blame the party for it now?
This won't change until true balance of power is implemented which won't be until the party goes away.
On December 07 2010 08:59 KaiserJohan wrote: Cut down on the amount of wall street dawgs / economy / administrative bullcrap and put those resources into actual industry.
LOL care to elaborate? "Wall street dawgs" provide a plethora of much needed services. Initial public offerings let people invest in what I'm assuming is "actual industry" to you, which is critical to what we, as a nation, like to tout as American innovation. Debt origination; you want all of those public sector goods like roads/hospitals/parks? The government, both on a federal and state level push out IOUs (muni bonds) to finance such projects. General investment advisory; retirement funds (including those giant multi billion dollar pension funds that service the pensions of teachers, policemen, firefighters, etc), letting your money make its own money, etc etc. Market clearing, to lessen the impact of market search friction and provide liquidity; try finding someone to buy from (or sell to) individuals, or corporations, the debt, equity, derivatives, etc that floats without this mechanism. The list goes on and on and on. Yes, the firms that make up the financial sector act in their best interest; that does NOT mean that it is useless, corrupt or a drain on society. Every for-profit corporation acts in accordance with its own interests, doing otherwise would be asinine (and if it's a public company, pretty much illegal for upper management to do without shareholder consent). The media's been putting on a show, as it so oft does, ironically, because it's good business for them.
I won't comment on "economy/ administrative bullcrap" since I have no idea what you're even referring to (I don't think you do either, but I'll be here if you want to clarify).
When it comes to economics, I think it's a little easier to play catchup than it is to lead because those countries receive outsourced jobs and their economic advancement is not held back by techonological advancement since they're not at the leading edge. China has its act together and has a plan so it's not surprising that they're doing well. Good for them!
Every country has its issues.
China has a ways to go on human rights but that comes naturally with economic prosperity and information is being shared ever more freely so I think that will naturally resolve itself in time. I think the same thing will bring a more representative government.
I think much the same thing of the US. We have a debt issue and an entitlement attitude issue. Both of those thing I think will be fixed in the school of hard knox. Just in the past couple years I've seen family and friends pay get out of debt and I've seen the attitudes of employees you meet at businesses on a daily basis improve noticeably. I myself was a lazy bum with a bad attitude when I was in college but a few years and some hard lessons have yielded a considerable improvement. I recognize, however, that those things are anecdotal and not necessarily indicative of the greater situation. Some examples that are: we've just recently seen the electorate make a fairly strong stance against debt, economic growth without job growth (higher productivity).
The U.S. is in an economic depression because of the huge boom in the financial sector which employed thousands of people to "guess" which next big company would hit it big. So much money was invested in educating people in business, finance and legal education that we now have a gigantic surplus of highly educated people in these fields but a huge deficit of people in science and engineering fields which develop the technology necessary to provide financial growth. Engineering is starting to become more profitable (especially in the computer sector) while development in the sciences is starting to grow thanks to private investment. Following the huge amount of layoffs in the financial sector (as well as the consistent downsizing of governmental employment) recently, we should begin to see steady economic growth in the U.S. again.
China is economically booming because they are going through a rapid industrialization process which creates many opportunities for employment. No doubt they will go through some period of over investment in some sectors just like any industrialized country. The rise of China's economy and the growth of the US economy are not mutually exclusive although it seems like people want to blow smoke at each other about which country is "better." As someone who is part of the UCSD graduate program (where there are a large number of Chinese, Taiwanese and Korean students) I can say that global integration is not a bad thing at all.
Avoiding talking about the U.S., it is hard to treat China as a traditional nation (i.e. linear path from birth, to rise, to peak, to fall and stagnation) mainly due to the fact that China has had, for the past five thousand years, a cycle; it will peak with a strong dynasty for a few hundred years, then the rulers will grow incompetent, then warfare and civil anarchy for a few hundred years. Eventually everyone gets tired of the constant fighting, gets behind the strongest warlord, and the cycle begins again.
I see the current situation as no different - China will most likely hit a peak relatively soon. But the fall of America? It is really hard to say at this date if America is "doomed," but I think the fact that when you ask a vast majority of people in improvised or second-world nations where they want to be, they say America.
Besides, I still believe that more Chinese want to come to the U.S. than Americans want to go live in China. (No proof for this, sorry if this is not true.)
On December 06 2010 09:51 infinitestory wrote: China has its own share of hurdles that it needs to go over first, including overpopulation, human rights issues, etc. which is delaying and will delay their rise for some time to come. But America needs to get its act together, and instead of acting like the status quo will be alright forever, we need to actually get something done. Knowing Chinese is going to be very useful in the next couple decades ;D
Overpopulation really isn't the problem. The solution to the problem is the issue China will need to deal with in the near future. The one child policy will lead to a rapidly aging workforce. Still, the policy if more favorable compared to India's electing to disregard overpopulation as a problem.
Human rights issues in China are both overblown by the West and underestimated by the Chinese public. With the supreme goal of maintaining economic stability, China has little tolerance for unrest and often deals with it brutally. However, actual life in China doesn't feel like living under a police state.
While corruption in is China is prevalent at the local level, the upper echelons of the government are fairly unaffected. The official policy and attitudes against corruption betrays no tolerance for such behavior. Corrupt politicians usually face Draconian measures.
This last point is wrong. Corruption is not only local but systemic and reaches up into the peaks of Party Central. I'm not sure what you meant by "9 politburos" but I'm guessing you were referring to the Politburo Standing Committee. There is a great deal of controversy over the business affairs of current and former PSC members' family (see for instance Wen Jiabao's wife, also, Jiang Zhemin's family). There is no way corruption at that level gets reported, and your claim that "the upper echelons of government are fairly unaffected" is false. For more on this, see Richard McGregor's "The Party."
Also, another point I'd have to disagree on is the "draconian measures" put in place to fight corruption. Every year, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao rally against corruption, promising change and sometimes even political reform--see Wen's controversial speech from earlier this year. However in actual practice there has been little movement against corruption. The few executions/prison terms you see of party bosses caught for embezzlement are show trials and the result of political infighting, not a real measurement of progress. The best example of this is the sacking of Chen Liangyu, Shanghai's party boss (a politburo level position) in 2006. Most commentators believe his removal was the result of Hu/Wen's maneuvering against the "Shanghai Gang", a powerful bloc in the Party led by Hu's predecessor and political rival Jiang. Moreover, the Party's Discipline and Inspection Committee is a means of factional competition between elites (again, see the sacking of the Shanghai party secretary), not a body that is empowered with really cracking down on corruption in any meaningful way.
I think you are significantly underplaying the detriment corruption is having on the Party and its legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese public. That said, I think the upcoming Congress in 2012 might offer some promise for change.
Let's not confuse corruption with incompetence. The fact that we don't hear about top party leaders's cash stash is not due to their virtue but rather political necessity. It doesn't mean that they don't trade in other means, power, position, opportunities, the list goes on.
And to be frank, I don't blame them, it's the way China works, find me someone who works for the government and is absolutely clean, I will say he is either a retard or lying. He is probably incompetent as well. How do you get shit done in China and not get your hand dirty?
You are writting this as if the evil comes from the party when it fact it is a model which the Chinese have chosen for their society. It has being like that for thousands of years, why blame the party for it now?
This won't change until true balance of power is implemented which won't be until the party goes away.
On December 06 2010 10:08 haduken wrote: China is even more screwed than USA. You see all the new highrises going up in cities and talk of cashed up tourists buying louis vutton, what you don't see is the billions of peasants and under-privleged urban dwellers who have very little means to survive let alone own a home.
You don't see the gross pollution around Chinese cities and the growing deserts in China's north. You also don't see the hidden tensions in Chinese society and the vast youth unemployment.
You think China is it? think again, generations of leaders have pushed problems into the future. The country will implode before the fall of America.
this.
and with the current education system and communism control, technology of china will never catch up with the western world. speaking as a biomedical field related researcher.
On December 06 2010 09:51 infinitestory wrote: China has its own share of hurdles that it needs to go over first, including overpopulation, human rights issues, etc. which is delaying and will delay their rise for some time to come. But America needs to get its act together, and instead of acting like the status quo will be alright forever, we need to actually get something done. Knowing Chinese is going to be very useful in the next couple decades ;D
Overpopulation really isn't the problem. The solution to the problem is the issue China will need to deal with in the near future. The one child policy will lead to a rapidly aging workforce. Still, the policy if more favorable compared to India's electing to disregard overpopulation as a problem.
Human rights issues in China are both overblown by the West and underestimated by the Chinese public. With the supreme goal of maintaining economic stability, China has little tolerance for unrest and often deals with it brutally. However, actual life in China doesn't feel like living under a police state.
While corruption in is China is prevalent at the local level, the upper echelons of the government are fairly unaffected. The official policy and attitudes against corruption betrays no tolerance for such behavior. Corrupt politicians usually face Draconian measures.
This last point is wrong. Corruption is not only local but systemic and reaches up into the peaks of Party Central. I'm not sure what you meant by "9 politburos" but I'm guessing you were referring to the Politburo Standing Committee. There is a great deal of controversy over the business affairs of current and former PSC members' family (see for instance Wen Jiabao's wife, also, Jiang Zhemin's family). There is no way corruption at that level gets reported, and your claim that "the upper echelons of government are fairly unaffected" is false. For more on this, see Richard McGregor's "The Party."
Also, another point I'd have to disagree on is the "draconian measures" put in place to fight corruption. Every year, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao rally against corruption, promising change and sometimes even political reform--see Wen's controversial speech from earlier this year. However in actual practice there has been little movement against corruption. The few executions/prison terms you see of party bosses caught for embezzlement are show trials and the result of political infighting, not a real measurement of progress. The best example of this is the sacking of Chen Liangyu, Shanghai's party boss (a politburo level position) in 2006. Most commentators believe his removal was the result of Hu/Wen's maneuvering against the "Shanghai Gang", a powerful bloc in the Party led by Hu's predecessor and political rival Jiang. Moreover, the Party's Discipline and Inspection Committee is a means of factional competition between elites (again, see the sacking of the Shanghai party secretary), not a body that is empowered with really cracking down on corruption in any meaningful way.
I think you are significantly underplaying the detriment corruption is having on the Party and its legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese public. That said, I think the upcoming Congress in 2012 might offer some promise for change.
Let's not confuse corruption with incompetence. The fact that we don't hear about top party leaders's cash stash is not due to their virtue but rather political necessity. It doesn't mean that they don't trade in other means, power, position, opportunities, the list goes on.
And to be frank, I don't blame them, it's the way China works, find me someone who works for the government and is absolutely clean, I will say he is either a retard or lying. He is probably incompetent as well. How do you get shit done in China and not get your hand dirty?
You are writting this as if the evil comes from the party when it fact it is a model which the Chinese have chosen for their society. It has being like that for thousands of years, why blame the party for it now?
This won't change until true balance of power is implemented which won't be until the party goes away.
google bo xilai. You're welcome.
Am I suppose to find anything interesting? He was a party leader who likes to recite Maoist ideals which means jack all.
On December 06 2010 09:51 infinitestory wrote: China has its own share of hurdles that it needs to go over first, including overpopulation, human rights issues, etc. which is delaying and will delay their rise for some time to come. But America needs to get its act together, and instead of acting like the status quo will be alright forever, we need to actually get something done. Knowing Chinese is going to be very useful in the next couple decades ;D
Overpopulation really isn't the problem. The solution to the problem is the issue China will need to deal with in the near future. The one child policy will lead to a rapidly aging workforce. Still, the policy if more favorable compared to India's electing to disregard overpopulation as a problem.
Human rights issues in China are both overblown by the West and underestimated by the Chinese public. With the supreme goal of maintaining economic stability, China has little tolerance for unrest and often deals with it brutally. However, actual life in China doesn't feel like living under a police state.
While corruption in is China is prevalent at the local level, the upper echelons of the government are fairly unaffected. The official policy and attitudes against corruption betrays no tolerance for such behavior. Corrupt politicians usually face Draconian measures.
This last point is wrong. Corruption is not only local but systemic and reaches up into the peaks of Party Central. I'm not sure what you meant by "9 politburos" but I'm guessing you were referring to the Politburo Standing Committee. There is a great deal of controversy over the business affairs of current and former PSC members' family (see for instance Wen Jiabao's wife, also, Jiang Zhemin's family). There is no way corruption at that level gets reported, and your claim that "the upper echelons of government are fairly unaffected" is false. For more on this, see Richard McGregor's "The Party."
Also, another point I'd have to disagree on is the "draconian measures" put in place to fight corruption. Every year, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao rally against corruption, promising change and sometimes even political reform--see Wen's controversial speech from earlier this year. However in actual practice there has been little movement against corruption. The few executions/prison terms you see of party bosses caught for embezzlement are show trials and the result of political infighting, not a real measurement of progress. The best example of this is the sacking of Chen Liangyu, Shanghai's party boss (a politburo level position) in 2006. Most commentators believe his removal was the result of Hu/Wen's maneuvering against the "Shanghai Gang", a powerful bloc in the Party led by Hu's predecessor and political rival Jiang. Moreover, the Party's Discipline and Inspection Committee is a means of factional competition between elites (again, see the sacking of the Shanghai party secretary), not a body that is empowered with really cracking down on corruption in any meaningful way.
I think you are significantly underplaying the detriment corruption is having on the Party and its legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese public. That said, I think the upcoming Congress in 2012 might offer some promise for change.
Let's not confuse corruption with incompetence. The fact that we don't hear about top party leaders's cash stash is not due to their virtue but rather political necessity. It doesn't mean that they don't trade in other means, power, position, opportunities, the list goes on.
And to be frank, I don't blame them, it's the way China works, find me someone who works for the government and is absolutely clean, I will say he is either a retard or lying. He is probably incompetent as well. How do you get shit done in China and not get your hand dirty?
You are writting this as if the evil comes from the party when it fact it is a model which the Chinese have chosen for their society. It has being like that for thousands of years, why blame the party for it now?
This won't change until true balance of power is implemented which won't be until the party goes away.
google bo xilai. You're welcome.
Am I suppose to find anything interesting? He was a party leader who likes to recite Maoist ideals which means jack all.
well the guy pretty much cleared an entire region of gangsters/mafias,and corrupt officials helping them,while receiving death threats everyday. He targeted government officials so high up that he had to get the ok from hu jintao. He's pretty much the harvey dent of China,without the oil burning.
On December 06 2010 10:08 haduken wrote: China is even more screwed than USA. You see all the new highrises going up in cities and talk of cashed up tourists buying louis vutton, what you don't see is the billions of peasants and under-privleged urban dwellers who have very little means to survive let alone own a home.
You don't see the gross pollution around Chinese cities and the growing deserts in China's north. You also don't see the hidden tensions in Chinese society and the vast youth unemployment.
You think China is it? think again, generations of leaders have pushed problems into the future. The country will implode before the fall of America.
this.
and with the current education system and communism control, technology of china will never catch up with the western world. speaking as a biomedical field related researcher.
Wouldn't say never, but...if the country fails, it'll be more because of the pompous current generation, members of the 1-child policy and not because of anything the Communist Party does.
On December 07 2010 10:24 SevenBunnies wrote: Avoiding talking about the U.S., it is hard to treat China as a traditional nation (i.e. linear path from birth, to rise, to peak, to fall and stagnation) mainly due to the fact that China has had, for the past five thousand years, a cycle; it will peak with a strong dynasty for a few hundred years, then the rulers will grow incompetent, then warfare and civil anarchy for a few hundred years. Eventually everyone gets tired of the constant fighting, gets behind the strongest warlord, and the cycle begins again.
I see the current situation as no different - China will most likely hit a peak relatively soon. But the fall of America? It is really hard to say at this date if America is "doomed," but I think the fact that when you ask a vast majority of people in improvised or second-world nations where they want to be, they say America.
Besides, I still believe that more Chinese want to come to the U.S. than Americans want to go live in China. (No proof for this, sorry if this is not true.)
This cycle held true for other monarchy's around the world, not just China. However, we have not had such an interdependent global society as we see today anywhere else in history. The Chinese dynasties were more or less self contained, yet absolute power in this territory. The China we know today, while absolute in power (close to it at least, as I consider control of information more significant than any other form of control) are not self contained. Far from it, and I am sure no one would disagree with that. This is uncharted waters and it is too hasty to liken it to a dynastic cycle.
Of course you could say that since all nations will end one way or another, the cycle will hold true. However, I don't think it will take quite the same steps as the dynasties did.
On December 07 2010 11:24 clementdudu wrote: well the guy pretty much cleared an entire region of gangsters/mafias,and corrupt officials helping them,while receiving death threats everyday. He targeted government officials so high up that he had to get the ok from hu jintao. He's pretty much the harvey dent of China,without the oil burning.
I heard of this guy, didn't catch his name though and he went against a group who over stepped the line and needs to squashed. Nothing new there.
The problem is systematic due to the balance of power solely rested with one group, corruption is just a way of life.
I think OP is really overblowing the situation. I was born in China, grew up in the states, and worked for a few months in Beijing. However to generalize Americans as lazy and predict the fall of America is quite unnecessary. No need to throw us all under the bus.
China's economy is strongly intertwined with that of the United States as our demand for consumer products drives their economy. 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. 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.
I am confident in America's continued success because we have so many fantastic institutions:
1. An incredible higher education system - we may have shitty high schools but our colleges are top notch.
2. A strong respect for Technology and R&D - American companies are more inclined to spend on R&D and we're also much more inclined to bet big and create risky start ups. From my experience that's definitely not the case in China. My cousin in Nanjing gets so much shit from his parents for not working for a big company like Microsoft even though he's in a great position with his smaller company.
3. A culture of independence and entrepreneurship - I've met so many fellow students who absolutely amaze me with their drive and work ethic. People like to characterize the American youth as lazy, free spending, and self-important but not enough attention is placed on those who are ambitious and work hard to succeed. The American dream is alive.
4. A stable and business friendly government - Despite what major media outlets seem to think, the US government has been remarkably stable in respect to other countries. The bureaucracy is a much maligned force in American politics but I really think it's been critical for us. Also America is still one of the most business friendly countries in the world (5th)
1. Media - It's pretty goddamn shitty. Not just Faux News but almost all of it is so goddamn bad for us. I actually wouldn't mind more state run media like NPR or BBC. The Global Times and CCTV in China is actually pretty informative and interesting without the obvious biases that Americans seem to expect. It's a lot more enjoyable to watch since there are fewer 'experts' overblowing every single news item of the day. (Anyone else remember CNBC dedicating a week of programming to the iPhone 4 connection issue?)
2. Trust in our leadership - a lot of this I think is caused by the media which scrutinizes the most asinine aspects of anyone who holds political office. I WANT my politician to disagree with his party from time to time. I WANT my politician to honestly express his position in his own words instead of relying on pleasing to the ear platitudes and talking points. We need leaders and not empty spokesmen/women who repeat trite phrases and bullshit us (Sarah Fucking Palin). I WANT my politician to be the smartest son of a bitch in the room. Elitism? I don't care if he's an elitist if he's genuinely trying his hardest to solve problems for his constituents.
3. Cost of Higher Education - Too damn high. Fuck school loans.
The EU, with all its problems, has already surpassed the US economy years ago. Given the huge military spending, the US are doing just fine, of course they could reduce that by 90% and give their citizens a better life, but that's another topic.
The EU also has a 66% larger population yet only a 2.2% larger GDP (2009 figures). Sorry, had to get my jab in =D. Though I will agree that America's Military Spending is quite ridiculous.
While America's advantage over China and the rest of the World is almost certain to diminish (Unless a world war destroys every other country in the world again) we definitely shouldn't see the "downfall" of the United States anytime soon.
Anyways, if I'm completely wrong you guys better start learning Mandarin. GL with TeamLiquid.cn
:edit: Wow I spent way too long writing; this thread really blew up
I try really hard not to be sensationalist about these sort of topics, but I've got to say I'm skeptical of the view point that American can NOT fail. I've read it a lot in the last couple pages. They buy too much, their army is too powerful, they innovate constantly. I'd like to insert into the conversation that America has been this way for just under 70 years. It was a shit-hole before that: (civil)war, depression and absurd imbalances in class wealth. That's barely one generation of prosperity. Sure we all grew up knowing nothing but this prosperity, but I think to say that we've reached a point where it can't end is extremely ignorant.
I say "we" because Canada/America have been joined at the hip since the end of WW2 anyway.
On December 07 2010 12:31 Horse...falcon wrote: I think OP is really overblowing the situation. I was born in China, grew up in the states, and worked for a few months in Beijing. However to generalize Americans as lazy and predict the fall of America is quite unnecessary. No need to throw us all under the bus.
China's economy is strongly intertwined with that of the United States as our demand for consumer products drives their economy. 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. 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.
I am confident in America's continued success because we have so many fantastic institutions:
1. An incredible higher education system - we may have shitty high schools but our colleges are top notch.
2. A strong respect for Technology and R&D - American companies are more inclined to spend on R&D and we're also much more inclined to bet big and create risky start ups. From my experience that's definitely not the case in China. My cousin in Nanjing gets so much shit from his parents for not working for a big company like Microsoft even though he's in a great position with his smaller company.
3. A culture of independence and entrepreneurship - I've met so many fellow students who absolutely amaze me with their drive and work ethic. People like to characterize the American youth as lazy, free spending, and self-important but not enough attention is placed on those who are ambitious and work hard to succeed. The American dream is alive.
4. A stable and business friendly government - Despite what major media outlets seem to think, the US government has been remarkably stable in respect to other countries. The bureaucracy is a much maligned force in American politics but I really think it's been critical for us. Also America is still one of the most business friendly countries in the world (5th)
1. Media - It's pretty goddamn shitty. Not just Faux News but almost all of it is so goddamn bad for us. I actually wouldn't mind more state run media like NPR or BBC. The Global Times and CCTV in China is actually pretty informative and interesting without the obvious biases that Americans seem to expect. It's a lot more enjoyable to watch since there are fewer 'experts' overblowing every single news item of the day. (Anyone else remember CNBC dedicating a week of programming to the iPhone 4 connection issue?)
2. Trust in our leadership - a lot of this I think is caused by the media which scrutinizes the most asinine aspects of anyone who holds political office. I WANT my politician to disagree with his party from time to time. I WANT my politician to honestly express his position in his own words instead of relying on pleasing to the ear platitudes and talking points. We need leaders and not empty spokesmen/women who repeat trite phrases and bullshit us (Sarah Fucking Palin). I WANT my politician to be the smartest son of a bitch in the room. Elitism? I don't care if he's an elitist if he's genuinely trying his hardest to solve problems for his constituents.
3. Cost of Higher Education - Too damn high. Fuck school loans.
The EU, with all its problems, has already surpassed the US economy years ago. Given the huge military spending, the US are doing just fine, of course they could reduce that by 90% and give their citizens a better life, but that's another topic.
The EU also has a 66% larger population yet only a 2.2% larger GDP (2009 figures). Sorry, had to get my jab in =D. Though I will agree that America's Military Spending is quite ridiculous.
While America's advantage over China and the rest of the World is almost certain to diminish (Unless a world war destroys every other country in the world again) we definitely shouldn't see the "downfall" of the United States anytime soon.
Anyways, if I'm completely wrong you guys better start learning Mandarin. GL with TeamLiquid.cn
:edit: Wow I spent way too long writing; this thread really blew up
I HATE the tuition here. I might be going to a college next year that's 30,000 USD a year..........30k loan is going to haunt me forever, especially considering it's art >_> job might be rough to find after.
On December 07 2010 12:31 Horse...falcon wrote: I think OP is really overblowing the situation. I was born in China, grew up in the states, and worked for a few months in Beijing. However to generalize Americans as lazy and predict the fall of America is quite unnecessary. No need to throw us all under the bus.
China's economy is strongly intertwined with that of the United States as our demand for consumer products drives their economy. 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. 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.
I am confident in America's continued success because we have so many fantastic institutions:
1. An incredible higher education system - we may have shitty high schools but our colleges are top notch.
2. A strong respect for Technology and R&D - American companies are more inclined to spend on R&D and we're also much more inclined to bet big and create risky start ups. From my experience that's definitely not the case in China. My cousin in Nanjing gets so much shit from his parents for not working for a big company like Microsoft even though he's in a great position with his smaller company.
3. A culture of independence and entrepreneurship - I've met so many fellow students who absolutely amaze me with their drive and work ethic. People like to characterize the American youth as lazy, free spending, and self-important but not enough attention is placed on those who are ambitious and work hard to succeed. The American dream is alive.
4. A stable and business friendly government - Despite what major media outlets seem to think, the US government has been remarkably stable in respect to other countries. The bureaucracy is a much maligned force in American politics but I really think it's been critical for us. Also America is still one of the most business friendly countries in the world (5th)
1. Media - It's pretty goddamn shitty. Not just Faux News but almost all of it is so goddamn bad for us. I actually wouldn't mind more state run media like NPR or BBC. The Global Times and CCTV in China is actually pretty informative and interesting without the obvious biases that Americans seem to expect. It's a lot more enjoyable to watch since there are fewer 'experts' overblowing every single news item of the day. (Anyone else remember CNBC dedicating a week of programming to the iPhone 4 connection issue?)
2. Trust in our leadership - a lot of this I think is caused by the media which scrutinizes the most asinine aspects of anyone who holds political office. I WANT my politician to disagree with his party from time to time. I WANT my politician to honestly express his position in his own words instead of relying on pleasing to the ear platitudes and talking points. We need leaders and not empty spokesmen/women who repeat trite phrases and bullshit us (Sarah Fucking Palin). I WANT my politician to be the smartest son of a bitch in the room. Elitism? I don't care if he's an elitist if he's genuinely trying his hardest to solve problems for his constituents.
3. Cost of Higher Education - Too damn high. Fuck school loans.
The EU, with all its problems, has already surpassed the US economy years ago. Given the huge military spending, the US are doing just fine, of course they could reduce that by 90% and give their citizens a better life, but that's another topic.
The EU also has a 66% larger population yet only a 2.2% larger GDP (2009 figures). Sorry, had to get my jab in =D. Though I will agree that America's Military Spending is quite ridiculous.
While America's advantage over China and the rest of the World is almost certain to diminish (Unless a world war destroys every other country in the world again) we definitely shouldn't see the "downfall" of the United States anytime soon.
Anyways, if I'm completely wrong you guys better start learning Mandarin. GL with TeamLiquid.cn
:edit: Wow I spent way too long writing; this thread really blew up
I HATE the tuition here. I might be going to a college next year that's 30,000 USD a year..........30k loan is going to haunt me forever, especially considering it's art >_> job might be rough to find after.
Gotta agree with much of your points there, the US has put a lot of focus on entrepreneurship and innovation (more so than any other nation) and that has resulted in much more start-ups, small business, and just a generally creative and ambitious peoples (although that's not always a good thing). China is trying to catch up to this standard and sinking a lot of money into higher education and whatnot, but it'll take a while for the general Chinese culture of conformity to come around.
I think the US definitely has an edge in this respect, although some other countries aren't far behind. I think China seems like it has an edge in some respects due to the sheer size of its workforce and production power, but that's not truly a unique advantage of China. I can see production for consumer products being shifted from China to any third-world country, I can't see the innovation and research power of American industry being replicated anywhere else.
It's not because of Chinese culture that the upper education offerings are limited. It's because of the Cultural Revolution literally setting everything back at least 10 years if not more. It's because that higher education foundations is something that is not simply solved by pouring money into it.
If you think Chinese production can simply be shifted to any 3rd world country, then you are mistaken, 3rd world countries can be unstable and thus be unreliable to count on production, China does not have that particular problem and more importantly a workforce willing to work at those levels. It's not a simple pack up and leave as you are making it out to be.
The innovation and research power of the US is fool's gold, because of the sheer amount of international involvement in the research process for the US. How much of that is built on international students and individuals who stand a good chance to head home? That's been the case for decades now and have recently gotten "worse" per say for the US.
I never said that all of Chinese production can "simply" be shifted to "any" 3rd world country. I simply stated production. It can be only a few companies, it can be a gradual process, it can be replaced by automation, it can whatever. I wasn't "making it out to be" anything, I was making the point that manufacturing stuff is not something that can only be done in China. I think you're the one who's mistaken here.
I don't even know what point you're trying to make about the research power of the US. I never stated it was an America-only process, I stated that the same conditions are unlikely to be reproduced in any other country's industry, not any time soon.
On December 07 2010 03:27 domovoi wrote: OP is ignorant. The rise of China (which was inevitable) to Mexican levels of prosperity does not mean America is fucked or will fall, except in GDP rankings. The rise of China is unquestionably a good thing for the average American.
OP's perception of America's industrial base is also ignorant. America has the largest manufacturing output in the world, it's just that as a share of GDP, it has steadily declined over the past 50 years. What has taken its place? Industries with high human capital, e.g. the tech industry. This is a good thing, because it gives laborers more leverage (the capital is in labor's hands, not the owners), is a more productive use of capital and is immune from automation for the foreseeable future. I don't understand why some people pine for the days when everyone worked on the floor; those jobs require little skill and should be shipped out to poorer nations and eventually automated.
OP's perception of the laziness of America's workforce is likewise ignorant. Amongst developed countries, Americans generally rank at the top in terms of hours worked. In fact, it is well known that the income gaps between Americans and Europeans is largely due to the fact that Europeans work much less rather than any gap in productivity between the two.
I think Mexico is a bad comparison to use. Are you going by per capita wealth?
I'm beginning to regret the 'sky is falling' tone of my original post. I don't believe that China's rise will necessarily come at the expense of America.
When speaking about industry, I don't mean just the manufacturing sector. Hi-tech industries are becoming more and more heavily subsidized in China which leads me to believe that corporations would be more eager to do business there.
Hours worked isn't a very good metric to be honest. Still, I don't mean to say that Americans are lazy; I just get the feeling that the most lucrative jobs in the United States aren't the most productive which is not as much the case in countries like China.
On December 07 2010 12:31 Horse...falcon wrote: I think OP is really overblowing the situation. I was born in China, grew up in the states, and worked for a few months in Beijing. However to generalize Americans as lazy and predict the fall of America is quite unnecessary. No need to throw us all under the bus.
China's economy is strongly intertwined with that of the United States as our demand for consumer products drives their economy. 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. 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.
I am confident in America's continued success because we have so many fantastic institutions:
1. An incredible higher education system - we may have shitty high schools but our colleges are top notch.
2. A strong respect for Technology and R&D - American companies are more inclined to spend on R&D and we're also much more inclined to bet big and create risky start ups. From my experience that's definitely not the case in China. My cousin in Nanjing gets so much shit from his parents for not working for a big company like Microsoft even though he's in a great position with his smaller company.
3. A culture of independence and entrepreneurship - I've met so many fellow students who absolutely amaze me with their drive and work ethic. People like to characterize the American youth as lazy, free spending, and self-important but not enough attention is placed on those who are ambitious and work hard to succeed. The American dream is alive.
4. A stable and business friendly government - Despite what major media outlets seem to think, the US government has been remarkably stable in respect to other countries. The bureaucracy is a much maligned force in American politics but I really think it's been critical for us. Also America is still one of the most business friendly countries in the world (5th)
1. Media - It's pretty goddamn shitty. Not just Faux News but almost all of it is so goddamn bad for us. I actually wouldn't mind more state run media like NPR or BBC. The Global Times and CCTV in China is actually pretty informative and interesting without the obvious biases that Americans seem to expect. It's a lot more enjoyable to watch since there are fewer 'experts' overblowing every single news item of the day. (Anyone else remember CNBC dedicating a week of programming to the iPhone 4 connection issue?)
2. Trust in our leadership - a lot of this I think is caused by the media which scrutinizes the most asinine aspects of anyone who holds political office. I WANT my politician to disagree with his party from time to time. I WANT my politician to honestly express his position in his own words instead of relying on pleasing to the ear platitudes and talking points. We need leaders and not empty spokesmen/women who repeat trite phrases and bullshit us (Sarah Fucking Palin). I WANT my politician to be the smartest son of a bitch in the room. Elitism? I don't care if he's an elitist if he's genuinely trying his hardest to solve problems for his constituents.
3. Cost of Higher Education - Too damn high. Fuck school loans.
The EU, with all its problems, has already surpassed the US economy years ago. Given the huge military spending, the US are doing just fine, of course they could reduce that by 90% and give their citizens a better life, but that's another topic.
The EU also has a 66% larger population yet only a 2.2% larger GDP (2009 figures). Sorry, had to get my jab in =D. Though I will agree that America's Military Spending is quite ridiculous.
While America's advantage over China and the rest of the World is almost certain to diminish (Unless a world war destroys every other country in the world again) we definitely shouldn't see the "downfall" of the United States anytime soon.
Anyways, if I'm completely wrong you guys better start learning Mandarin. GL with TeamLiquid.cn
:edit: Wow I spent way too long writing; this thread really blew up
It's tough not to blow up the situation with my admittedly limited knowledge of all relevant factors at hand. If pressed, I'd justify my somewhat sensationalist tone with the intention to provoke strong feelings on the matter.
I don't really consider the portion of China's 'artificially created' growth as such. Whether or not buildings currently stand empty or roads remain unused, these are still real infrastructure projects. You could make the case that this money is better spent elsewhere, but artificial growth is still real growth.
As for the entrepreneurial spirit you speak of... I feel like that might be specific to the West Coast, at least among the youth. I go to university in New York, and most of my peers intend to work at an already established firm. I can't help but feel that the Dot-com boom has all but subsided. It's extremely hard these days to attract funding for a start-up. It's almost unheard of where I come from.
It's hard for me to consider the EU as a cohesive body, though I'm admittedly not too informed of it's current political situation.
Everything else you said I pretty much agree with.
On December 06 2010 10:08 haduken wrote: China is even more screwed than USA. You see all the new highrises going up in cities and talk of cashed up tourists buying louis vutton, what you don't see is the billions of peasants and under-privleged urban dwellers who have very little means to survive let alone own a home.
You don't see the gross pollution around Chinese cities and the growing deserts in China's north. You also don't see the hidden tensions in Chinese society and the vast youth unemployment.
You think China is it? think again, generations of leaders have pushed problems into the future. The country will implode before the fall of America.
Nah, they've got a couple hundred years before implosion point. Legions and legions of lives are sacrificed for damage control in China on a yearly basis. At some point the populous will get fed up enough to force change, but they are very complacent at this point in time, and I think it's a long while out still.
What will be really interesting to see is how the Chinese superpower would deal with the rising Muslim world if the Americans are no longer in a position to play police there.
If their track record within their own boarder is any indication... Mass murder is a very real possibility...
On December 06 2010 10:08 haduken wrote: China is even more screwed than USA. You see all the new highrises going up in cities and talk of cashed up tourists buying louis vutton, what you don't see is the billions of peasants and under-privleged urban dwellers who have very little means to survive let alone own a home.
You don't see the gross pollution around Chinese cities and the growing deserts in China's north. You also don't see the hidden tensions in Chinese society and the vast youth unemployment.
You think China is it? think again, generations of leaders have pushed problems into the future. The country will implode before the fall of America.
Nah, they've got a couple hundred years before implosion point. Legions and legions of lives are sacrificed for damage control in China on a yearly basis. At some point the populous will get fed up enough to force change, but they are very complacent at this point in time, and I think it's a long while out still.
What will be really interesting to see is how the Chinese superpower would deal with the rising Muslim world if the Americans are no longer in a position to play police there.
If their track record within their own boarder is any indication... Mass murder is a very real possibility...
Very vague and weird points.
It's hard to imagine China dealing with the Muslim world worse than America has. China has a much better relationship with the Middle East - Pakistan especially.
Great article OP. I'm a Singaporean studying in America, and I've been to China numerous times in the past. Before today, I would have argued that America may be in decline, but it will still remain a superpower for a long time. Tonight, however, I change my mind. A few hours ago, I watched Obama give his speech on TV. He basically pulled his pants down, and offered his ass to the republicans. After weeks of political fighting, the bush tax cuts for the rich remain.
America has become a crony state; politicians no longer represent the people but their rich clients in wall street. How can a country achieve anything great when it's government cannot even raise taxes to support its spending? We cannot expect the rich to pay their dues, but when their banks fail and their house prices fall, we all have to cough up money to bail them out. This is no longer the great country that defeated Hitler and the USSR. Abraham Lincoln would roll in his grave if he saw the state of his country today.
Meanwhile, the average American remains brainwashed by the media. The best of Chinese propaganda cannot compete with the evil that is Fox News. I study in the South, where you will find the poorest, most uneducated communities in the whole United States. These people may be hungry and unemployed, yet they willingly support the republicans, a party that wants nothing but to steal from the poor to fill the pockets of the rich. Why? Because of abortion and Jesus Christ, clearly the two most pressing issues of our time.
I'd rather be forced to live with the CCP, than have the "choice" of either Democrats or Republicans, two absolutely useless and corrupted parties. If Sarah Palin becomes president in 2012, than I'm definitely putting my money on China.
On December 06 2010 10:11 sk` wrote: Since 4 can be labeled as the cause of 1, 2, and 3 only 4 needs to be stated. In Japan, we actually have a 7.5 hour work day and our per-person GDP is higher than the states. I was born American, but I will curse the day when I have to live there again. I go back constantly for business trips and I am always appalled at how shitty the American worker has become - lazy, constantly complaining, insane unearned sense of entitlement. It is no longer if Atlas shrugs or not, the weight of the unproductive world (American world) has bloated to unbearable levels. Atlas changed countries.
Funny. In Japan you also have suicide due to burnout and shit like this (just read wiki! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan)... Japan is a sick country, just like this world. Living for $.
People being "lazy" mean people doesn't get the motivation to do more...
Nah, they've got a couple hundred years before implosion point. Legions and legions of lives are sacrificed for damage control in China on a yearly basis. At some point the populous will get fed up enough to force change, but they are very complacent at this point in time, and I think it's a long while out still.
What will be really interesting to see is how the Chinese superpower would deal with the rising Muslim world if the Americans are no longer in a position to play police there.
If their track record within their own boarder is any indication... Mass murder is a very real possibility...
The Muslim world won't be rising when the oil runs out.
Anyhow It's ludicrous to think China can keep growing at 8% a year when the amount of resources available is diminishing every year , you don't have to be a tree hugger to figure out that it will all fall in on itself within 5-10 years or so (Hint : Wars for resources , Mad Max style).
In that scenario investment bankers won't be in high demand and that 100,000 entry level salary you were earning may just be enough to buy one loaf of bread.Sorry to burst y'alls bubble carry on.
I think the main issue I take with OP is that his stance is so sensationalistic. We hear stuff like this all the time in the media, the whole idea that "China is catching up to the US and will take over the world one day." Just look at some of the recent laughable campaign ads regarding China (find em on youtube).
However, China has some major structural problems that lurk behind the facade of breakneck growth. The sum of these deep social and political weaknesses make China's surpassing the US far less certain than economic statistics suggests. Susan Shirk's "Fragile Superpower" is a great read on this topic. As a remedy, the Chinese Communist Party oriented all of its policies toward ensuring growth. Without keeping the economy churning along, most people feel that grievances from society at large would boil over and threaten the entire political order. This kind of arrangement is neither desirable nor sustainable.
Granted, the US is facing some serious problems as well. But at the same time, the US has (for the lack of a better term) an enormous resiliency that the Chinese state cannot match. To steal some points from a previous poster: In comparison to China, the US has the advantage of a robust civil society, the world's best universities and research institutes, and flexible political system that despite its flaws is not dependent on maintaining double digit GDP growth for its very survival.
I'm not saying that OP's point is flat out impossible. Who knows where things will stand in 20 years. But having a more measured outlook, I feel that China's surpassing the US is no certainty either.
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. ♪♪
Of course, it should be noted Shanghai is not a cross-section of China.
Also the last two paragraphs are worth noting:
“This is the first time that we have internationally comparable data on learning outcomes in China,” Mr. Schleicher said. “While that’s important, for me the real significance of these results is that they refute the commonly held hypothesis that China just produces rote learning.”
“Large fractions of these students demonstrate their ability to extrapolate from what they know and apply their knowledge very creatively in novel situations,” he said.
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.
On December 06 2010 10:08 haduken wrote: China is even more screwed than USA. You see all the new highrises going up in cities and talk of cashed up tourists buying louis vutton, what you don't see is the billions of peasants and under-privleged urban dwellers who have very little means to survive let alone own a home.
You don't see the gross pollution around Chinese cities and the growing deserts in China's north. You also don't see the hidden tensions in Chinese society and the vast youth unemployment.
You think China is it? think again, generations of leaders have pushed problems into the future. The country will implode before the fall of America.
Nah, they've got a couple hundred years before implosion point. Legions and legions of lives are sacrificed for damage control in China on a yearly basis. At some point the populous will get fed up enough to force change, but they are very complacent at this point in time, and I think it's a long while out still.
What will be really interesting to see is how the Chinese superpower would deal with the rising Muslim world if the Americans are no longer in a position to play police there.
If their track record within their own boarder is any indication... Mass murder is a very real possibility...
Very vague and weird points.
It's hard to imagine China dealing with the Muslim world worse than America has. China has a much better relationship with the Middle East - Pakistan especially.
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.
On December 07 2010 17:59 chevron wrote: I think the main issue I take with OP is that his stance is so sensationalistic. We hear stuff like this all the time in the media, the whole idea that "China is catching up to the US and will take over the world one day." Just look at some of the recent laughable campaign ads regarding China (find em on youtube).
However, China has some major structural problems that lurk behind the facade of breakneck growth. The sum of these deep social and political weaknesses make China's surpassing the US far less certain than economic statistics suggests. Susan Shirk's "Fragile Superpower" is a great read on this topic. As a remedy, the Chinese Communist Party oriented all of its policies toward ensuring growth. Without keeping the economy churning along, most people feel that grievances from society at large would boil over and threaten the entire political order. This kind of arrangement is neither desirable nor sustainable.
Granted, the US is facing some serious problems as well. But at the same time, the US has (for the lack of a better term) an enormous resiliency that the Chinese state cannot match. To steal some points from a previous poster: In comparison to China, the US has the advantage of a robust civil society, the world's best universities and research institutes, and flexible political system that despite its flaws is not dependent on maintaining double digit GDP growth for its very survival.
I'm not saying that OP's point is flat out impossible. Who knows where things will stand in 20 years. But having a more measured outlook, I feel that China's surpassing the US is no certainty either.
I think you should take a look at what a professor at one of those vaunted world's best universities and research institutes has to say about these amazing national strengths you are claiming the USA possesses.
Half the problem with US citizens is our ridiculous complacency and belief that we are invincible. The Romans didn't think their empire would die either. I hope I don't need to spend a thousand lines drawing the parallels between the two empires to show how similar the American mindset now was to the Roman mindset back then. The Romans had the same superlatives of economic, military, and civic stability/dominance.
On December 06 2010 10:11 sk` wrote: Since 4 can be labeled as the cause of 1, 2, and 3 only 4 needs to be stated. In Japan, we actually have a 7.5 hour work day and our per-person GDP is higher than the states. I was born American, but I will curse the day when I have to live there again. I go back constantly for business trips and I am always appalled at how shitty the American worker has become - lazy, constantly complaining, insane unearned sense of entitlement. It is no longer if Atlas shrugs or not, the weight of the unproductive world (American world) has bloated to unbearable levels. Atlas changed countries.
+1. The west has become fat and lazy, and will pay for it.
On December 06 2010 10:08 haduken wrote: China is even more screwed than USA. You see all the new highrises going up in cities and talk of cashed up tourists buying louis vutton, what you don't see is the billions of peasants and under-privleged urban dwellers who have very little means to survive let alone own a home.
You don't see the gross pollution around Chinese cities and the growing deserts in China's north. You also don't see the hidden tensions in Chinese society and the vast youth unemployment.
You think China is it? think again, generations of leaders have pushed problems into the future. The country will implode before the fall of America.
Nah, they've got a couple hundred years before implosion point. Legions and legions of lives are sacrificed for damage control in China on a yearly basis. At some point the populous will get fed up enough to force change, but they are very complacent at this point in time, and I think it's a long while out still.
What will be really interesting to see is how the Chinese superpower would deal with the rising Muslim world if the Americans are no longer in a position to play police there.
If their track record within their own boarder is any indication... Mass murder is a very real possibility...
Wait, why would China have to "deal" with the Muslim world? Why would America be no longer in a position to "play police"?
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.
On December 07 2010 16:28 Consolidate wrote: I think Mexico is a bad comparison to use. Are you going by per capita wealth?
China need only reach Mexican levels of prosperity to overtake America in overall GDP. Think about that. It indicates two things: 1) Despite all of China's progress, it is still very poor overall; 2) China is so huge it doesn't need to be particularly wealthy to be influential.
As a corollary, there is a good chance that within 100 years, India will have the highest GDP. Even if India is in way worse shape than China today.
I'm beginning to regret the 'sky is falling' tone of my original post. I don't believe that China's rise will necessarily come at the expense of America.
It simply won't come at America's expense unless China's rise is an imperialistic one (laughable). Nothing about China's rise is zero-sum, except diplomatic influence.
On December 07 2010 16:28 Consolidate wrote: I think Mexico is a bad comparison to use. Are you going by per capita wealth?
China need only reach Mexican levels of prosperity to overtake America in overall GDP. Think about that. It indicates two things: 1) Despite all of China's progress, it is still very poor overall; 2) China is so huge it doesn't need to be particularly wealthy to be influential.
As a corollary, there is a good chance that within 100 years, India will have the highest GDP. Even if India is in way worse shape than China today.
I'm beginning to regret the 'sky is falling' tone of my original post. I don't believe that China's rise will necessarily come at the expense of America.
It simply won't come at America's expense unless China's rise is an imperialistic one (laughable). Nothing about China's rise is zero-sum, except diplomatic influence.
This is a wrong way of looking at things. Many of America's luxuries and advantages exist only ONLY because they are the supreme economic and military power right now. I don't think people understand there is a world's difference between #1 and #2 when it comes to geopolitics. Especially in a capitalist system, top dog status matters very very much. Analogize this phenomenon to being big stack at a poker table. It allows you to play situations out completely different from if you were merely a player with a good sized stack. If the US loses its position as #1 it will cost dearly.
China is fueling is economy on the backs of essentially slave-like labor, as soon as the middle class rises to have any sort of power at all, I mean in any way, then there is going to be sympathy for the poor and China will have a revolution.
As soon as any of the poor in China wield any sort of power, there's going to be a revolution. There's just so many of them, and they've been treated like dirt by their government for centuries.
On December 08 2010 02:08 Rakanishu2 wrote: China is fueling is economy on the backs of essentially slave-like labor, as soon as the middle class rises to have any sort of power at all, I mean in any way, then there is going to be sympathy for the poor and China will have a revolution.
As soon as any of the poor in China wield any sort of power, there's going to be a revolution. There's just so many of them, and they've been treated like dirt by their government for centuries.
They haven't even had the current form of government for a single century....
On December 08 2010 02:08 Rakanishu2 wrote: China is fueling is economy on the backs of essentially slave-like labor, as soon as the middle class rises to have any sort of power at all, I mean in any way, then there is going to be sympathy for the poor and China will have a revolution.
As soon as any of the poor in China wield any sort of power, there's going to be a revolution. There's just so many of them, and they've been treated like dirt by their government for centuries.
That is exactly what the link in the first line of the OP is talking about. How China plan to make a shift from profiting off cheap labor to profiting off a strong middle class.
On December 08 2010 03:08 optical630 wrote: dont worry, i hear invading countries fixes a recession,
who should american/UK invade next?
It is just that war is the only short-term stimulus conservatives will support. Plenty of other things would work, you just can't convince those right of center that roads do more good than bombs, so you'll have to settle for war!
If the US loses its position as #1 it will cost dearly.
You're very short on specifics. What will it cost besides its ranking in a GDP table?
Petrodollar.
World Bank.
Global reserve currency.
Arms trade.
Free trade agreements.
Control of WTO.
Control of UN.
Many, many resource trade agreements based on USA's position as global dominant political, economic, and military power.
You seem to not understand that political power is inextricably tied to economic and military power. You can't lose one or two of them and not have the third affected.
Case in point: USSR. Plenty of military and political power, but it all fell apart when their economic power collapsed.
USA's economic power is greatly based on favorable trading statuses, favorable mineral, oil, natural resource rights, and tons and tons of foreign investment/lending based on the US dollar's status as global reserve currency.
I was low on specifics in previous posts because these are such basic and obvious aspects of geopolitics that anyone involved in this debate should have understood them from the onset. It would be like someone debating SC2 and not knowing why it'd be bad if a zerg had no queens. You can't honestly believe that the USA's GDP is just some magical number that has no relationship with political or military power, right?
WWIII is coming my friends and we will rock China's face off!! join the military now! It's our time our country and our freedom!! We can not let any country run us we build big trucks for fun , China go ahead and say something slick and see what else we will build! with a 30% literacy rate and you want to compete? psh we be droppin bomb all over y'all haha we are USA and you can't touch us!
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.
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!
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
they are hidden all around you just waiting for an excuse to unlead their inventories.
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.
Idk, I think you oversee important points of such especulation, everyone is so eager to lick the US balls because they think its whats best for them, if the US were in such a situation, many countries would look after their own interests, I know I aint supporting the US in any military conflict that is not against insectoid swarming aliens.
On December 08 2010 06:07 D10 wrote: Idk, I think you oversee important points of such especulation, everyone is so eager to lick the US balls because they think its whats best for them, if the US were in such a situation, many countries would look after their own interests, I know I aint supporting the US in any military conflict that is not against insectoid swarming aliens.
Like minded goverments often find it's easier to deal with then those who go off willy nilly in their affairs. But as far as governments go china is one without a lot of friends militarily who carry weight.
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.
One quick caveat about the subs, they're all attack subs that aren't capable of going out deep into the pacific. Essentially they're u-boats.
On December 08 2010 06:07 D10 wrote: Idk, I think you oversee important points of such especulation, everyone is so eager to lick the US balls because they think its whats best for them, if the US were in such a situation, many countries would look after their own interests, I know I aint supporting the US in any military conflict that is not against insectoid swarming aliens.
Like minded goverments often find it's easier to deal with then those who go off willy nilly in their affairs. But as far as governments go china is one without a lot of friends militarily who carry weight.
You are certainly exagerating if you think China does not have the resources to transform the world in a nuclear wasteland, specially the US.
Its an interesting scenario, personally I think if a conflict erupeted as a result from the Korea crisis, the US and EU and asia would go to hell
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.
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?
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.
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.
On December 08 2010 19:56 BruceLee6783 wrote: 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.
But I could be wrong.
You should apologize. Saying, "Go to another country if you don't like it here," is offensive as hell and provides absolutely nothing to the discourse.
Refute people on points but don't try to define their position or tell them what to do. Those are basic tenets of civil discussion.
It's also sad to me that that you think any critic should leave the country. In fact, it's you who sullies and disgraces the legacy of what America as a nation was supposed to stand for. Maybe you should take some time to read the history of your country that you're so keen on telling other people to leave.
Reading the rest of your post makes me wonder if it might not just be some type of sick parody of how mainstream Americans thinks, or if you genuinely believe what you're saying. If you genuinely do believe it, I can only advise that you spend more time reading real history and less time absorbing US propaganda and rhetoric.
Your usage of we and us doesn't make sense either. There is no concept of WE in the USA. There is only the concept of me, myself, and I. This nation doesn't in any way, shape, or form work as a unified whole. It's more of a patchwork clusterfuck of corporatist interests, union coalitions, and private equity funds siphoning off as many tax dollars as they can while bleeding the populace dry. It is exactly your mentality and your ignorance towards the condition of your nation that leads so many to call Americans complacent, ignorant, and lazy. Not lazy in the sense that you guys won't work a 9 to 5, but lazy in the sense that you don't stop to look around for a second and realize what is going on in the political and economic theaters of your country. You just keep trudging on, eating the lies that are fed to you about US exceptionalism and telling yourself that if all else fails the USA can just beat someone up to make everything better. If you want to be a true patriot, you should spend more time thinking about how to help your country improve, rather than just keep insisting that it's fking awesome and you'll kick out or beat up anyone who disagrees. It's exactly this kind of bullshit that makes so many of the intellectuals in America just want to gtfo.
On December 09 2010 03:21 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
Armies in battle are not the only touching points/issues.
On December 09 2010 03:21 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
Well I have to ask you the same thing: Please provide some concrete examples. China has contact with the Islam for over 1400 Years. How is it even possible to talk about zero historical context with such a long history? What about the all the problems this contact had created? For example the fact that China has State atheism? What about the cultural revolution, where alot of Qurans were burned and muslims were persecuted? What about the fact that Kashgar's Old Town was destroyed (including mosques if I am not mistaken)? What about the Ma family, who played an important role in chinese history? What about the fact that prototurks settled in north and northwest China and changed chinese society during their assimilation or sinicization? What about neighbouring states like Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan where Islam is the dominanted religion? And the fact that China is seeking more and more influence (critics might call this imperialism) in those countries? All this you call "zero" because only one battle has occurred? Please explain and elaborated, because I don't see it at all.
On December 09 2010 03:21 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
They are by no means wild. I don't see how China can stay neutral forever if it keeps trading (arms for example) with everybody.Do you really think you can have excellent business relations with Iran without pissing people off (I am not talking about the United States)? Stopping or hindering muslims in China (by restricting mosque building for example) will not generate hate towards China? Persecuting Uyghur won't create problems with the islamic world? I would call this prediction pretty wild, but if you can back it up, please do so.
On December 09 2010 03:21 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
You are oversimplifying the issue. This is not limited to "stealing jobs", cultural imperialism as well as racism are a big factor as well (I would assume that africans know that africans in China are threatet like second class humans). The entire issue creates alot of prejudice which is of course easily exploitable by religious fanatics.
On December 09 2010 01:32 Adaptation wrote: One thing you most not forget at all times.
- 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.
Culturally speaking the US won, american culture and language are entrenched in all areas of knowledge and in all corners of the globe, but it doesnt mean much, look at greece for instance, they certainly had a cultura victory, and are a normal country today
On December 09 2010 05:43 StorkHwaiting wrote: You should apologize. Saying, "Go to another country if you don't like it here," is offensive as hell and provides absolutely nothing to the discourse.
Refute people on points but don't try to define their position or tell them what to do. Those are basic tenets of civil discussion.
"You should apologize". Well sir, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm afraid you just made a hypocrite of yourself by telling me to not tell people what to do, then turning around and telling me to apologize.
Besides, my comment to the OP about moving to China was a suggestion. It was never meant to offend him, let alone anyone else. That includes you. He/She doesn't need you to get offended for them, so please let the OP make that decision for him/herself, especially since my comments were aimed at him/her.
On December 09 2010 03:21 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
Armies in battle are not the only touching points/issues.
On December 09 2010 03:21 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
Well I have to ask you the same thing: Please provide some concrete examples. China has contact with the Islam for over 1400 Years. How is it even possible to talk about zero historical context with such a long history? What about the all the problems this contact had created? For example the fact that China has State atheism? What about the cultural revolution, where alot of Qurans were burned and muslims were persecuted? What about the fact that Kashgar's Old Town was destroyed (including mosques if I am not mistaken)? What about the Ma family, who played an important role in chinese history? What about the fact that prototurks settled in north and northwest China and changed chinese society during their assimilation or sinicization? What about neighbouring states like Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan where Islam is the dominanted religion? And the fact that China is seeking more and more influence (critics might call this imperialism) in those countries? All this you call "zero" because only one battle has occurred? Please explain and elaborated, because I don't see it at all.
On December 09 2010 03:21 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
They are by no means wild. I don't see how China can stay neutral forever if it keeps trading (arms for example) with everybody.Do you really think you can have excellent business relations with Iran without pissing people off (I am not talking about the United States)? Stopping or hindering muslims in China (by restricting mosque building for example) will not generate hate towards China? Persecuting Uyghur won't create problems with the islamic world? I would call this prediction pretty wild, but if you can back it up, please do so.
On December 09 2010 03:21 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
You are oversimplifying the issue. This is not limited to "stealing jobs", cultural imperialism as well as racism are a big factor as well (I would assume that africans know that africans in China are threatet like second class humans). The entire issue creates alot of prejudice which is of course easily exploitable by religious fanatics.
Explain the part where any of the things you mentioned holds even a candle to the enmity that Christianity and Islam has had over the centuries. I don't think you understand what you're trying to claim here. You're saying China's state atheism (which does not single out any one religion) is on a comparable level to Christian/Islam hostility? I am extremely skeptical of fundamentalist rhetoric holding up in any hypothetical Sino-Islamic conflict. I didn't say China and Islam have never met. I said, there is ZERO context between China and Islam that is remotely comparable to that of the bloodstained history between Christianity and Islam. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? It doesn't Compare. Not that it doesn't exist.
And yeah, you can have business relations with Iran without pissing off the rest of the world. Hope you're aware the EU and Russia both do business with Iran. EU was also doing quite a bit of business with Iraq when the USA invaded. Specifically France. Hence a lot of the outrage in the EU at the onset of the war.
Stopping or hindering Muslims in China will not have much affect. Al-Qaeda has already tried to support the Uighur movement in the northwest and tried to incite unrest. It has not been very effective. I think you fail to understand the Islamic fundamentalist movement. It's not a unified body that is sweeping the globe and swallowing up countries. It relies on local unrest and a local base of support. While the Uighurs are not that happy, their insurgency does not come anywhere close to the scale of the Afghanis or the Iraqis. Again, you are not seeing that there is a huge degree of difference between these regions. You seem to think that as long as it involves Muslims who are unhappy, that it's absolutely the same and its inevitable that anywhere there is an unhappy Muslim there will be some huge tide of fundamentalist guerrilla warfare. This is why I think your predictions are outlandish.
...And then you're claiming Chinese cultural imperialism in Africa?! Now I know you're just trying to peddle some crazy alarmist rhetoric. This has no substance whatsoever. Yes, I'm sure Chinese construction workers and overseers are pushing their culture on the Africans while constituting less than one thousandth of the population. That makes perfect sense. Especially considering China is practically devoid of any culture to spread other than capitalism and industrialization. Your claims just make no sense.
And no, your assumption about Africans knowing how black people are viewed in China would be wrong. I'm pretty sure tribal Africans do not know or care how African-Americans on vacation in China are being treated. Seriously, this last post really went off the deep end. Also, violence against Chinese workers in Africa has nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism. Please, just stop.
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.
are you in fact explaining europe by way of its larger reserve of untapped resources compared to africa and the americas?
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: And yeah, you can have business relations with Iran without pissing off the rest of the world. Hope you're aware the EU and Russia both do business with Iran. EU was also doing quite a bit of business with Iraq when the USA invaded. Specifically France. Hence a lot of the outrage in the EU at the onset of the war.
You seriously think that the "outrage" in Europe ( and most specifically France ) about the second war in Iraq was related to business ? That's a good way to dismiss all the blatant lies of the Bush administration.
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: And yeah, you can have business relations with Iran without pissing off the rest of the world. Hope you're aware the EU and Russia both do business with Iran. EU was also doing quite a bit of business with Iraq when the USA invaded. Specifically France. Hence a lot of the outrage in the EU at the onset of the war.
You seriously think that the "outrage" in Europe ( and most specifically France ) about the second war in Iraq was related to business ? That's a good way to dismiss all the blatant lies of the Bush administration.
Among the populace, no. Government-wise, hell yes. France had major oil contracts with Iraq and was looking to secure more in the future. I said nothing about the blatant lies of the Bush administration, but thank you for taking that next illogical step for me.
China needs to solve its massive real estate bubble before anything about inheriting the world will ever happen. Pricing for housing is about 40 times sustained annual rent rates and about 20 times average annual salaries. A lot of units are empty while the occupied ones might have four or five people jammed into one room. And now China's central bank is raising its interest rates to combat the coming inflation.
The next two years will be interesting times in China to say the least.
And on a more practical note, people who don't approve of US's government should move away and take their productivity and taxable income with them. If it's that bad, starve the beast and build a good alternative.
On December 09 2010 10:20 TanGeng wrote: China needs to solve its massive real estate bubble before anything about inheriting the world will ever happen. Pricing for housing is about 40 times sustained annual rent rates and about 20 times average annual salaries. A lot of units are empty while the occupied ones might have four or five people jammed into one room. And now China's central bank is raising its interest rates to combat the coming inflation.
The next two years will be interesting times in China to say the least.
And on a more practical note, people who don't approve of US's government should move away and take their productivity and taxable income with them. If it's that bad, starve the beast and build a good alternative.
Yeah, China's financial system is soooo fucked up lol. Cronyism out the ass in nearly every aspect of it. (Real estate being a derivative of the financial system.)
On December 09 2010 05:43 StorkHwaiting wrote: You should apologize. Saying, "Go to another country if you don't like it here," is offensive as hell and provides absolutely nothing to the discourse.
Refute people on points but don't try to define their position or tell them what to do. Those are basic tenets of civil discussion.
"You should apologize". Well sir, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm afraid you just made a hypocrite of yourself by telling me to not tell people what to do, then turning around and telling me to apologize.
Besides, my comment to the OP about moving to China was a suggestion. It was never meant to offend him, let alone anyone else. That includes you. He/She doesn't need you to get offended for them, so please let the OP make that decision for him/herself, especially since my comments were aimed at him/her.
No apology necessary, though I do take issue with the merit of your original comment.
I have visited China and stayed for extended periods of time - both in major metropolitan areas and in relatively impoverished towns (Fujain province mostly).
However, you must realize that anecdotal evidence can only draw a limited conclusion.
In order to explain myself more, I'd have to take a huge detour from this topic. But I won't derail this thread in order to do so.
StorkHwaiting seems to think that I'm brainwashed into believing everything the media tells me, as if they're directly spoon feeding every idea and notion that comes to me. I'm sorry, but that is simply not the case.
I'm trying to be patriotic and defend much of the bad reputation that the country seems to have on this website. I live in the US, and to visit here and see so many people bad mouthing my country makes me angry.
I'm not sure if I love what my country has been doing lately or not, because I don't spend my time hanging around Washington DC and such seeing and listening to what goes on behind closed doors. Could our own government be screwing us over? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But they have a job to do, and we trust them to do it well. Stop acting as if the USA is the only country that harbors idiots/lazy people/corrupt politicians/biased news agencies. If the US was originally successful, only to end up a bankrupt country, what's to stop the same thing happening to China? Just because they're very successful at the moment? Yeah, well...so was the US in it's infancy.
This post is not directed at anyone specifically, but if you dislike my country as much as you SEEM to, then maybe it's not worth wasting your time over. Quit talking about it. You guys sure waste a lot of time on the topic, time that could be used to enhance your life, rather than gossip yourselves to death over it.
I love you guys, btw. I just wish you'd be more respectful of other's countries.
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: Explain the part where any of the things you mentioned holds even a candle to the enmity that Christianity and Islam has had over the centuries.
Sorry, but I am not the one who needs to explain. You need to explain why those events are, which are, just like Christianity and Islam, centuries old, meaningless. You are the one who claimed that the issue between Christianity and Islam is huge and the issue between China and Islam is nothing compared to it. So why should I continue pointing out that there are hundrets of issues between Islam and China, when you won't explain why it is still nothing? Simply repeating doesn't make it true, you know. You need to give me something more. Either explain it to me (this means you actually take the time to point out the huge issues between Christianity and Islam) or you quote someone who has actually some sort of authority (sorry to say, but your word just isn't enough).
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: I don't think you understand what you're trying to claim here.
Please stop those random flames. I understand what I am saying.
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: You're saying China's state atheism (which does not single out any one religion) is on a comparable level to Christian/Islam hostility?You're saying China's state atheism (which does not single out any one religion) is on a comparable level to Christian/Islam hostility?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that state atheism is one of the problems which indicate as well as generate hostility. The total sum of issues is maybe not on the same level as Christian/Islam hostility, but it is comparable. Which makes your initial statement "China also has absolutely zero historical context with the Muslim world like America does." untrue.
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: I am extremely skeptical of fundamentalist rhetoric holding up in any hypothetical Sino-Islamic conflict. I didn't say China and Islam have never met. I said, there is ZERO context between China and Islam that is remotely comparable to that of the bloodstained history between Christianity and Islam. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? It doesn't Compare. Not that it doesn't exist.
I understand you the first time, however this doesn't mean it is true. I showed you many issues between China and Islam. Like I said above: Simply saying "it is nothing compared to Christianity and Islam" isn't enough.
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: And yeah, you can have business relations with Iran without pissing off the rest of the world. Hope you're aware the EU and Russia both do business with Iran. EU was also doing quite a bit of business with Iraq when the USA invaded. Specifically France. Hence a lot of the outrage in the EU at the onset of the war.
I don't want to derail the thread any further, especially since your comparison doesn't add much to the discussion. Let me just make myself clearer: The trade relations China has between different nations in the middle east as well as africa generate problems. As we know many countries have issues with each other, and the fact that China trades with all of them, is something that is pissing them off (naturally). Not sure if the EU/France - Iraqwar flame is serious or just trolling, either way it has nothing to do with the discussion.
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: Stopping or hindering Muslims in China will not have much affect.
Says who? You? Not good enough.
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: Al-Qaeda has already tried to support the Uighur movement in the northwest and tried to incite unrest. It has not been very effective.
First of all: Do you have any source for your claims that Al-Qaeda has tried to support the Uyghur movement? Second of all: I doubt Al-Qaeda had anything to do with it, but there has been a major uprising in Ürümqi. You are claiming:
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: While the Uighurs are not that happy, their insurgency does not come anywhere close to the scale of the Afghanis or the Iraqis.
yet what you failed to understand is, that the uprising in Xinjiang is disastrous for China. I never made the comparision between Xinjiang and Afghanistan (please stop putting word into my mouth). What I have said is, that those events and uprisings have a possibility to develop into something worse and that islamist fundamentalist are angry because of the oppression. They might choose to support the Uyghurs in the future. Unlike you I am not claiming that they did (I am really interested in your source), but that they might.
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: You seem to think that as long as it involves Muslims who are unhappy, that it's absolutely the same and its inevitable that anywhere there is an unhappy Muslim there will be some huge tide of fundamentalist guerrilla warfare.
This is not what I think. I think it is a possibility, but I doubt it will be guerrilla warfare (that doesn't even make sense in China..). Terrorist attacks are way more likely.
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: ...And then you're claiming Chinese cultural imperialism in Africa?! Now I know you're just trying to peddle some crazy alarmist rhetoric. This has no substance whatsoever. Yes, I'm sure Chinese construction workers and overseers are pushing their culture on the Africans while constituting less than one thousandth of the population. That makes perfect sense. Especially considering China is practically devoid of any culture to spread other than capitalism and industrialization. Your claims just make no sense.
This gets kinda annoying but okay, I try to explain it to you. First, please stop ignoring one point while picking on another. I said cultural imperialism as well as racism. You don't seem to understand what cultural imperialism means. It is not as narrowminded as you think it is. Building up compounds, denying entry, ignoring local law and favouring those who speak chinese is a form of cultural imperialism. But the major issue is no doubt racism. I only brought this up because you claimed the problems in Africa are simply "China is stealing jobs". That entire statement is just wrong and clearly shows that you haven't really studied chinese involvement in Africa, otherwise you would know that it is not about stealing jobs. It is about the way chinese employers act. They use shotguns on africans (google news will provide you with some information) or cut wages. While at the same time being really corrupt (with the local government). It has, by no means, anything to do with stealing jobs, as jobs aren't the issue at all. China is even creating jobs and only sending expats where the local market can't deliever, mainly engineers. Again, this has nothing to do with stealing jobs and your point was just wrong.
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: And no, your assumption about Africans knowing how black people are viewed in China would be wrong. I'm pretty sure tribal Africans do not know or care how African-Americans on vacation in China are being treated. Seriously, this last post really went off the deep end.
*sigh* Seriously, it is kinda hard to discuss if you don't take the effort and read some background. I have no idea why you are taling about tribal Africans or African-Americans on vacation in China (what the hell?!). Let me give you some insight: There are africans in China. No, not African-Americans, really Africans. Tens of thousands of them, language students. And they experience racism everyday. I urge you once again to put some effort into this and actually take a look at africans in China and chinese involvement in Africa. Otherwise a discussion makes no sense, because you don't really know the background.
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: Also, violence against Chinese workers in Africa has nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism.
Like I have already said: Those are issues which create prejudice with aids Islamic fundamentalism/hate towards China.
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: Please, just stop.
I would hope you could stop the: - pointless flaming - derailing of the topic - claiming things without proving anything - replying "do you even know what I am/you are talking about LOLO?!" while ignoring all the arguments
If you have done that I might consider replying. Don't bother replying if you just repeat yourself/flame my english/go offtopic.
There will be no borders between countries in 50 years. English will become second must-have language. People can move around the world and work anywhere. Successful ones will get on top, maybe whole Microsoft will consist of indians and chinese.
I come from relatively third world country, have been to USA for 6 months, have been to Singapore for 2.5 years. And believe my country is progressing really fast. Life quality is almost same as in USA or Singapore now. Except some human-rights and corruption problems. But other than that I can have everything car, wide screen tv, high speed internet, all modern technologies. Basically all stuff that average american has. I don't have to work hard for that either.
World is changing now. There is no competition between countries anymore.
On December 09 2010 16:10 BruceLee6783 wrote: In order to explain myself more, I'd have to take a huge detour from this topic. But I won't derail this thread in order to do so.
StorkHwaiting seems to think that I'm brainwashed into believing everything the media tells me, as if they're directly spoon feeding every idea and notion that comes to me. I'm sorry, but that is simply not the case.
I'm trying to be patriotic and defend much of the bad reputation that the country seems to have on this website. I live in the US, and to visit here and see so many people bad mouthing my country makes me angry.
I'm not sure if I love what my country has been doing lately or not, because I don't spend my time hanging around Washington DC and such seeing and listening to what goes on behind closed doors. Could our own government be screwing us over? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But they have a job to do, and we trust them to do it well. Stop acting as if the USA is the only country that harbors idiots/lazy people/corrupt politicians/biased news agencies. If the US was originally successful, only to end up a bankrupt country, what's to stop the same thing happening to China? Just because they're very successful at the moment? Yeah, well...so was the US in it's infancy.
This post is not directed at anyone specifically, but if you dislike my country as much as you SEEM to, then maybe it's not worth wasting your time over. Quit talking about it. You guys sure waste a lot of time on the topic, time that could be used to enhance your life, rather than gossip yourselves to death over it.
I love you guys, btw. I just wish you'd be more respectful of other's countries.
Where in the hell did you get the notion that America's greatness was built on "trusting" the government to do their job? You must have missed the memo called the American Revolution, the Constitution, the separation of powers, States' Rights, Centralization vs Decentralization, Republican minimalism of gov't versus Democratic expansion of government. Basically, it seems like you don't have the slightest inkling about the political discourse of "your" country. Nor do you understand that a significant part of America's identity is in the fact that the citizens do not trust government, they control government and determine its course through voting.
If you want to go live in a country where people should just shutup and trust the government to do their job, well... I would recommend you move to China .
Also, the US in its infancy was not all that successful. I suggest you read your country's history. And that of Europe at the time, so you have a better understanding of this country you supposedly love so much. Getting your capital burnt down multiple times, requiring large volumes of foreign aid, and being predominantly agrarian is not what I would call very successful in its infancy. In fact, tiny ass UK was the world's top industrial power during the USA's infancy. The USA's ascension had as much to do with the Napoleonic wars of Europe as it had to do with the US's own merits. And this pattern was repeated over and over again until the middle of the 20th century. Europe owns itself, USA profits by sitting on the sidelines.
It's odd though, somehow I managed to learn this stuff without hanging around Washington DC. :-\
On December 10 2010 03:45 StorkHwaiting wrote: If you want to go live in a country where people should just shutup and trust the government to do their job, well... I would recommend you move to China .
Don't misrepresent China. Although that might be one central tenant of Confuscianism - to trust in government in exchange for virtuous rule, few in China see the government as virtuous or even half-non-corrupt. The Communism Party is entirely concentrated on suppressing political dissent, trying to maintain the economic boom, and maintaining public order. It has little mandate to do anything else.
On December 09 2010 16:10 BruceLee6783 wrote: In order to explain myself more, I'd have to take a huge detour from this topic. But I won't derail this thread in order to do so.
StorkHwaiting seems to think that I'm brainwashed into believing everything the media tells me, as if they're directly spoon feeding every idea and notion that comes to me. I'm sorry, but that is simply not the case.
I'm trying to be patriotic and defend much of the bad reputation that the country seems to have on this website. I live in the US, and to visit here and see so many people bad mouthing my country makes me angry.
I'm not sure if I love what my country has been doing lately or not, because I don't spend my time hanging around Washington DC and such seeing and listening to what goes on behind closed doors. Could our own government be screwing us over? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But they have a job to do, and we trust them to do it well. Stop acting as if the USA is the only country that harbors idiots/lazy people/corrupt politicians/biased news agencies. If the US was originally successful, only to end up a bankrupt country, what's to stop the same thing happening to China? Just because they're very successful at the moment? Yeah, well...so was the US in it's infancy.
This post is not directed at anyone specifically, but if you dislike my country as much as you SEEM to, then maybe it's not worth wasting your time over. Quit talking about it. You guys sure waste a lot of time on the topic, time that could be used to enhance your life, rather than gossip yourselves to death over it.
I love you guys, btw. I just wish you'd be more respectful of other's countries.
Blindly defending a country without impartial acknowledgement of its flaws and the reasons others would assert to attack that country is not patriotism, it's blind nationalism and the same force that has led to so many brutal dictatorships we have seen in the past century. The true patriot accepts the flaws of his country and works to improve it through dissent and yes, even direct criticism. Criticism is not indicative of disrespect either, as you apparently equate it.
Also, "if you don't like this country, leave it" is the most offensive and blatantly stupid personal attack you could possibly make in any argument regarding politics.
On December 09 2010 09:35 StorkHwaiting wrote: Please, just stop.
I would hope you could stop the: - pointless flaming - derailing of the topic - claiming things without proving anything - replying "do you even know what I am/you are talking about LOLO?!" while ignoring all the arguments
If you have done that I might consider replying. Don't bother replying if you just repeat yourself/flame my english/go offtopic.
I will try not to flame you, but I sincerely need to ask if you understand what rhetoric means. You've brought up a lot of examples of stuff but what you haven't done is bring up a point which convinces me that there is any persuasive anti-China rhetoric with which Islamic fundamentalism can use.
Why? Because China did not have hundreds of years of Crusades.
No matter what you say about African workers and how African students are treated in China, I don't think they are anywhere near as inflammatory as the history Islam has had with Christianity. Whether you choose to agree or disagree with me is your choice. I have my opinion, you have yours. I will continue to maintain my opinion, no matter how many times you reiterate that you think different. But belaboring your point about Africa over and over is not going to convince me that you have a good argument. Africans being mistreated is not going to inflame the Islamic world like it does when they call America the Great Satan, show how America is supporting Israel, the age old enemy of the Arabs, and that the US president himself called many Islamic countries part of the Axis of Evil etc.
China has done none of these things. China trades with everyone, yes. I fail to see how Islam is going to rise up and attack China because of this.
Nor is the rhetoric as powerful in the imagination and psyche of the Islamic people. Fundamentalism cannot survive without young extremist recruits. While it's easy to get them fired up over the filth and corruption and Great Satan that is the Western world because they have been raised on a steady diet of history in which the Islamic world was repeatedly attacked by Christianity, it is MUCH harder to paint this black/white dynamic when it comes to China. China is this far-off mystical country that they don't know jack shit about. The rhetoric doesn't hold up.
And yes... there are a great number of sources out there confirming Al-Qaeda tried to lend support to the Uighur separatist movement. They were rebuffed because the Uighurs want to preserve a legitimate claim to independence, not get labeled an international terrorist organization. Hence again why I don't see China's supposed issue with Islam will ignite into an international war against terrorism like the US is entrenched in. In my opinion, showing yet more evidence that Al-Qaeda's attempts at anti-Chinese rhetoric will fail and that they will have great difficulty drumming up support in the Islamic world for such a campaign.
On December 10 2010 03:45 StorkHwaiting wrote: If you want to go live in a country where people should just shutup and trust the government to do their job, well... I would recommend you move to China .
Don't misrepresent China. Although that might be one central tenant of Confuscianism - to trust in government in exchange for virtuous rule, few in China see the government as virtuous or even half-non-corrupt. The Communism Party is entirely concentrated on suppressing political dissent, trying to maintain the economic boom, and maintaining public order. It has little mandate to do anything else.
The USA is failing and I think you have to be a little delusional to not see this. All it will take is other countries not wanting US dollars and the entire US economy will fall apart and the Federal Reserve constantly pumping in billions and billions every year is only going to speed this up. The US has half the world's military budget and military bases in over 170 different countries and there are more public sector jobs created every year than private sector jobs yet the economy needs the private sector to stay afloat, this is not something that can be sustained for a long period of time but our politicians are only increasing it rather than slowly scaling back like they should be.
Sorry to say, but none of those links are reliable sources regarding AQ activity in NW-China. China claiming Al-Qaeda is involved has to be expected. The opposit has to be expected from Kaader (since she doesn't want to lose western support). Funny enough the third link actually proves my point that fanatics will start picking on China and start terrorist attacks.
I also fail to see how something that happend more then 700 years ago is apparently more important than the last 100 to 200 years and whats happening right now. But I guess thats just like your opinion (man).
On December 10 2010 03:45 StorkHwaiting wrote: Where in the hell did you get the notion that America's greatness was built on "trusting" the government to do their job?
Then I guess you missed the memo where Americans elect politicians whom they TRUST to get the job done.
If you want to go live in a country where people should just shutup and trust the government to do their job, well... I would recommend you move to China .
Personal attack on me. Nothing more. Stop making a hypocrite of yourself.
On December 10 2010 03:55 Krigwin wrote: Also, "if you don't like this country, leave it" is the most offensive and blatantly stupid personal attack you could possibly make in any argument regarding politics.
Once again, I never said that. It was merely a suggestion.
Rofl, you guys only read what you want to read. I'm so done with this topic.
On December 10 2010 04:28 Treemonkeys wrote: The USA is failing and I think you have to be a little delusional to not see this. All it will take is other countries not wanting US dollars and the entire US economy will fall apart and the Federal Reserve constantly pumping in billions and billions every year is only going to speed this up. The US has half the world's military budget and military bases in over 170 different countries and there are more public sector jobs created every year than private sector jobs yet the economy needs the private sector to stay afloat, this is not something that can be sustained for a long period of time but our politicians are only increasing it rather than slowly scaling back like they should be.
I don't agree with you that America has collapsed.The USA markets are showing positive signals which will come or surpass China in the near future. China Buying
Its easier to get economic groth when you dont have to tihnk about things such as human rights and the environment. I think that in 10~20 years, if not sooner, china will be the biggest economy. After another 10 years india will follow them and be the seccond world economy. Thats just becouse after a certain point economic groth will stagnate. And china has what, 5x as many inhabitants as the usa? So even if the gnp in USA is 4x greater, china will be the bigger world economie. Overall i think its a good thing that the rest of the world is catching up. But i gues we'll have to see how it all turns out.
This is normal. China is hungry and it's people have been poor for a long time so they work hard. A lot like impoverished Americans from Europe used to. Power shifts all the time and back again no big deal. Adversity makes us stronger and all that. Once we can't spend what we don't have I think you'll see discipline again and shift. Also everyone can rise as well. Doesn't have to be either or. For example Germany and China is growing exports and getting richer.
China has a double-edged sword of a problem that they are facing now that is terribly difficult to solve.
Either growth in China is going to overheat and inflationary pressures are going to make food unaffordable for the lower classes (especially in the north), or growth is going to slow down to something in the middle single digits (note: anything below 10%/year is a recession for the Chinese at this point), and this will result in not enough job creation for an ever expanding lower class that can't afford housing nor has private land that they can use.
This isn't to say that America won't have to shoulder it's fair share of more hardship. America has a long way out of this recession still, despite what many economists say. However, China is very overhyped and will not replace America as the "economic superpower."
Even if you look at it through older economic models (i.e. Gerschenkron), all signs point to an inability to sustain such outrageous growth without significant problems popping up.
America's "lazy" public and "short sighted" congress has still produced a standard of living over 6 times that of China's.
I cannot believe you would blame "western values" for China's economic growth when it was eastern communism that held them down for so long and liberalization and "western values" that has allowed their economic growth.
On December 06 2010 10:20 Owarida wrote: What do you guys think about forced military service like SK has in America? Could help build some discipline, leadership, and national pride. All good things when considering growth of a nation.
In My Humble Opinion: Forced Military Service = Slavery except it is worse in that instead of being forced to grow crops you are forced to potentially kill people.
On February 11 2011 16:18 tdt wrote: This is normal. China is hungry and it's people have been poor for a long time so they work hard. A lot like impoverished Americans from Europe used to. Power shifts all the time and back again no big deal. Adversity makes us stronger and all that. Once we can't spend what we don't have I think you'll see discipline again and shift. Also everyone can rise as well. Doesn't have to be either or. For example Germany and China is growing exports and getting richer.
Well growing exports is a zero-sum game.. since that means another country is growing imports.
EPT
. 
