Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Economic Future of China

A.K
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 8:30:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM, A.K wrote:
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?

1) GDP is growing at 11% a year, the highest of nation. This will continue to grow for a long time, as China still has a lot in poverty to be uplifted, and a unlimited amount of resources and markets.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn...

2)Not true in the slightest. The majority of Chinese are within working age. In fact, they have way to much populous, and they have n incredibly small amount of old people.

http://mawillits.files.wordpress.com...

3)Partially true, but upon quick examination of the markets pointed out, China already owns majority investment. Especially within the African nations, which are the second place to look for cheap labor.

Anyways, I would immediately fact check everything that you said, as most of its false.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
A.K
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 9:59:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually, back in 2007, China was growing at 14.2%. Now its at around 7.8%. Not so good.

And I said that there *will* be a shortage of young workers. Look up a population tree diagram for China. This is a great way of visualizing what I'm talking about.

By investment, I mean foreign investors investing in emerging markets. Many investors are turning to the countries I mentioned, instead of China.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 10:24:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 9:59:33 PM, A.K wrote:
Actually, back in 2007, China was growing at 14.2%. Now its at around 7.8%. Not so good.

And I said that there *will* be a shortage of young workers. Look up a population tree diagram for China. This is a great way of visualizing what I'm talking about.

By investment, I mean foreign investors investing in emerging markets. Many investors are turning to the countries I mentioned, instead of China.

I believe 7% was in 2012. Its 11% this year. And no, you have addressed none of my point. China has a stable populous of young working citizens, with many of undeveloped markets, and a GDP growth 6 times higher then the US.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
A.K
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 10:44:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.reuters.com...

Reuters - China economic growth hits 18 month low

Their economy is now growing at 7.4%.

And here is a population pyramid for China now and in 2050:
http://www.fdbetancor.com...

Look at the pyramid. Can you see the issue?

Does this address your arguments?
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 10:52:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 10:44:45 PM, A.K wrote:
http://www.reuters.com...

Reuters - China economic growth hits 18 month low

Their economy is now growing at 7.4%.

That's a good sign, as always. The rule of the thumb, is that a developed nation should grow 2% a year to stay healthy. China's economy uplifted almost 600 billion people from extreme poverty, and 7.4% of 8 billion is not a failing sign.

And here is a population pyramid for China now and in 2050:
http://www.fdbetancor.com...

Look at the pyramid. Can you see the issue?

I aalready looked at the population pyramid before responding to you. The vast majority of the nation is within working age. The child age is high and the extreme old age is moderate. That's a good sign, compared to France and Japan.

Does this address your arguments?

No, they hurt your case. And next time, reply directly
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 10:57:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM, A.K wrote:
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?

I largely agree with the points you've made. One thing people seem to ignore is that China has a population four-times that of the US, so it should have a larger national output. The fact that it doesn't is indicative of a problem all by itself. The average income of a Chinese citizen is a fraction of what an average American brings in, and I find that more important when judging the success of an economic system. And on top of that they are destroying their natural environment in a way which will cost dearly in the near future. Neighboring countries are already complaining about the toxins crossing the border.

Like you, I expect that the Chines system is quickly reaching its peak. I can't help but be reminded of all the books I read about how Japan was going to economically conquer the world back in the 80's. It takes a lot more money to support 1.2 billion people (and all their associated needs), yet the percentage of the Chinese population which is actually producing money instead of consuming it looks set to drop in the future.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:10:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 8:30:43 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM, A.K wrote:
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?

1) GDP is growing at 11% a year, the highest of nation. This will continue to grow for a long time, as China still has a lot in poverty to be uplifted, and a unlimited amount of resources and markets.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn...

Inaccurate and outdated. China's GDP growth was 7.5% last year. What you said was consensus before 2008, but there is some doubt going forward due to possible malinvestment.

http://www.theguardian.com...

2)Not true in the slightest. The majority of Chinese are within working age. In fact, they have way to much populous, and they have n incredibly small amount of old people.

http://mawillits.files.wordpress.com...

China's aging population is a well-known problem. The OP got it right.

http://thediplomat.com...

3)Partially true, but upon quick examination of the markets pointed out, China already owns majority investment. Especially within the African nations, which are the second place to look for cheap labor.

The underlined is incomprehensible and nonsensical. China's labor market is unquestionably becoming less competitive as its standard of living rises. This is a direct result of the alleviation of poverty you mentioned earlier.

Anyways, I would immediately fact check everything that you said, as most of its false.

Most of it is true. Regardless, China doesn't need to grow at 10+% annually to surpass the the US before 2030.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:17:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:10:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:30:43 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM, A.K wrote:
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?

1) GDP is growing at 11% a year, the highest of nation. This will continue to grow for a long time, as China still has a lot in poverty to be uplifted, and a unlimited amount of resources and markets.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn...

Inaccurate and outdated. China's GDP growth was 7.5% last year. What you said was consensus before 2008, but there is some doubt going forward due to possible malinvestment.

Isn't the GDP growth rate set at 8% for China in 2014 though?

http://www.theguardian.com...

2)Not true in the slightest. The majority of Chinese are within working age. In fact, they have way to much populous, and they have n incredibly small amount of old people.

http://mawillits.files.wordpress.com...

China's aging population is a well-known problem. The OP got it right.

http://thediplomat.com...

From my knowledge, China's over population has never been a extreme concern. I know that the life expectancy in China is 72, and that's lower then half of Africa believe it or not.

3)Partially true, but upon quick examination of the markets pointed out, China already owns majority investment. Especially within the African nations, which are the second place to look for cheap labor.

The underlined is incomprehensible and nonsensical. China's labor market is unquestionably becoming less competitive as its standard of living rises. This is a direct result of the alleviation of poverty you mentioned earlier.

Anyways, I would immediately fact check everything that you said, as most of its false.

Most of it is true. Regardless, China doesn't need to grow at 10+% annually to surpass the the US before 2030.

China will most likely surpass the US. The GDP isn't a good indicator of who would be relatively stronger though in this case. Idealist was spot on about national output though. China should gear itself more towards its untapped markets.

Anyways, I don't care if China is wealthier, as long as that pushes them to give more rights and improve the welfare of its citizens. The GDP growth is a good sign, but a lot of that money should be given to the people.

The government makes a huge influx of revenue each year, but the average citizen is living on 2$ a day, For a country that's allegedly socialist, they seem to neglect the people quite a bit.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:17:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 10:57:31 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM, A.K wrote:
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?

I largely agree with the points you've made. One thing people seem to ignore is that China has a population four-times that of the US, so it should have a larger national output. The fact that it doesn't is indicative of a problem all by itself. The average income of a Chinese citizen is a fraction of what an average American brings in, and I find that more important when judging the success of an economic system. And on top of that they are destroying their natural environment in a way which will cost dearly in the near future. Neighboring countries are already complaining about the toxins crossing the border.

Like you, I expect that the Chines system is quickly reaching its peak. I can't help but be reminded of all the books I read about how Japan was going to economically conquer the world back in the 80's. It takes a lot more money to support 1.2 billion people (and all their associated needs), yet the percentage of the Chinese population which is actually producing money instead of consuming it looks set to drop in the future.

China is where Japan was in the 60s. Once China achieves half the success of what South Korea achieved, it will surpass the US. Once China achieves half the success of what Japan achieved, it will surpass BOTH the EU AND the US. Keep in mind that Japan in the 80s was approaching US standards of living. If China approached that level, people wouldn't be talking about whether or not China would take over the world...it would have ALREADY taken over the world.

The OP merely states that China will not be able to grow at the torrid pace at which it's grown historically. That's most certainly true...10+% growth is unsustainable. However, even if it grew at 5% annually, it would become the largest economy of the world in relatively short order.

The underlined is a gross mischaracterization of the economic picture. China could double its consumption rate and still consume less of a percentage of GDP than what we currently consume. Most economists are actually attempting to encourage Chinese consumption to redirect malinvestment to something more sustainable.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:32:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:17:32 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:10:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:30:43 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM, A.K wrote:
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?

1) GDP is growing at 11% a year, the highest of nation. This will continue to grow for a long time, as China still has a lot in poverty to be uplifted, and a unlimited amount of resources and markets.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn...

Inaccurate and outdated. China's GDP growth was 7.5% last year. What you said was consensus before 2008, but there is some doubt going forward due to possible malinvestment.

Isn't the GDP growth rate set at 8% for China in 2014 though?

Regardless, the trend is downward. There may be some minor rises here and there, but it will unquestionably converge with developed economies as China itself develops.

http://www.theguardian.com...

2)Not true in the slightest. The majority of Chinese are within working age. In fact, they have way to much populous, and they have n incredibly small amount of old people.

http://mawillits.files.wordpress.com...

China's aging population is a well-known problem. The OP got it right.

http://thediplomat.com...

From my knowledge, China's over population has never been a extreme concern. I know that the life expectancy in China is 72, and that's lower then half of Africa believe it or not.

From my classes (not saying they're right, just saying), overpopulation was what brought down the Qing dynasty. The idea is that the Taiping Rebellion was resultant from overpopulation that much of the world also experienced around that time due to improved agricultural elements. Coupled with the Opium wars, and you got more unrest than you did elsewhere.

3)Partially true, but upon quick examination of the markets pointed out, China already owns majority investment. Especially within the African nations, which are the second place to look for cheap labor.

The underlined is incomprehensible and nonsensical. China's labor market is unquestionably becoming less competitive as its standard of living rises. This is a direct result of the alleviation of poverty you mentioned earlier.

Anyways, I would immediately fact check everything that you said, as most of its false.

Most of it is true. Regardless, China doesn't need to grow at 10+% annually to surpass the the US before 2030.

China will most likely surpass the US. The GDP isn't a good indicator of who would be relatively stronger though in this case. Idealist was spot on about national output though. China should gear itself more towards its untapped markets.

GDP is an excellent indicator of relative strength. It's just not a good indicator of quality of life...for that you need GDP per capita.

Anyways, I don't care if China is wealthier, as long as that pushes them to give more rights and improve the welfare of its citizens. The GDP growth is a good sign, but a lot of that money should be given to the people.

The government makes a huge influx of revenue each year, but the average citizen is living on 2$ a day, For a country that's allegedly socialist, they seem to neglect the people quite a bit.

Agree with most of this, but the $2/day line shows how quickly things change in China. I think that's about 5-10 years old...I remember calculating average wages out, and given $6-8k/year, that works out to about $3-4/HOUR, not per day.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:33:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Note though, this is certainly nothing new. China has historically been one of the richest nations on earth, and we all know how much social, economic, and political unrest they faced. China is socially backwards, and history has proven not very good at adapting to technology.

Even under the nationalists, who were built on socially progressive principles, were always divided by tradition and culture. At the current rate, China will surpass the US, which I find stupid as their are very easy ways to prevent this IMO.......

1. Stop fighting between parties. Mutual cooperation will make things so much smoother.

2. Were behind in the trade game. We have limited markets in the third world compared to Europe and China. Change course immediately.

3. Unless were planning on conquering half the world, REDUCE THE MILITARY BUDGET

4. Elect the right congress members this time. The house cost us billions in unnecessary and violent debate. We need people who can make decisions and move on. This is the theory behind progressivism.

5. Install some direct democracy, for points 4 and 1.

6. Use the progressive tax. Regardless of "fairness", it has the potential to add way more then a trillion back into the economy.

7. Find alternative ways to reduce the debt. Whether this is through tech trading or arms trading, I don't care.

8. Inflate the dollar (Edgy on this one)

I'll add some more later, but the point is that are economic supremacy (which we don't really need) does not have to fail so quickly. From my understanding, the only thing keeping us from performing on the same level as France and Britain is the debt, which makes me quite depressed.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:37:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:17:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 10:57:31 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM, A.K wrote:
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?

I largely agree with the points you've made. One thing people seem to ignore is that China has a population four-times that of the US, so it should have a larger national output. The fact that it doesn't is indicative of a problem all by itself. The average income of a Chinese citizen is a fraction of what an average American brings in, and I find that more important when judging the success of an economic system. And on top of that they are destroying their natural environment in a way which will cost dearly in the near future. Neighboring countries are already complaining about the toxins crossing the border.

Like you, I expect that the Chines system is quickly reaching its peak. I can't help but be reminded of all the books I read about how Japan was going to economically conquer the world back in the 80's. It takes a lot more money to support 1.2 billion people (and all their associated needs), yet the percentage of the Chinese population which is actually producing money instead of consuming it looks set to drop in the future.

China is where Japan was in the 60s. Once China achieves half the success of what South Korea achieved, it will surpass the US. Once China achieves half the success of what Japan achieved, it will surpass BOTH the EU AND the US. Keep in mind that Japan in the 80s was approaching US standards of living. If China approached that level, people wouldn't be talking about whether or not China would take over the world...it would have ALREADY taken over the world.

The OP merely states that China will not be able to grow at the torrid pace at which it's grown historically. That's most certainly true...10+% growth is unsustainable. However, even if it grew at 5% annually, it would become the largest economy of the world in relatively short order.

The underlined is a gross mischaracterization of the economic picture. China could double its consumption rate and still consume less of a percentage of GDP than what we currently consume. Most economists are actually attempting to encourage Chinese consumption to redirect malinvestment to something more sustainable.

Well, I'm not informed enough about this subject to have a serious debate about it, but when it comes to politics all anyone can really do is to wait and see, so we will see. From what I've read, because of it's one-child policy China's mean population has been aging rapidly, and the Chinese have a strong tradition of the young supporting the old. The whole country isn't much bigger than the US, but has four times the people to feed, clothe, provide medical and power for, etc. Many economists have begun to backtrack and to say that China will barely surpass the US economy this century, if they do it at all. I'm no economist, so I rely largely on their predictions. I know that enery will be a large problem for them, and food has always been. Maybe in a decade or so someone will be able to make a prediction with at least some measure of certainty to it.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:41:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:32:17 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:17:32 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:10:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:30:43 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM, A.K wrote:
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?

1) GDP is growing at 11% a year, the highest of nation. This will continue to grow for a long time, as China still has a lot in poverty to be uplifted, and a unlimited amount of resources and markets.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn...

Inaccurate and outdated. China's GDP growth was 7.5% last year. What you said was consensus before 2008, but there is some doubt going forward due to possible malinvestment.

Isn't the GDP growth rate set at 8% for China in 2014 though?

Regardless, the trend is downward. There may be some minor rises here and there, but it will unquestionably converge with developed economies as China itself develops.

Yeah, I already pointed this out. 2% is the average GDP growth for a developed nation. His theory on the downward trend is actually a good thing.

http://www.theguardian.com...

2)Not true in the slightest. The majority of Chinese are within working age. In fact, they have way to much populous, and they have n incredibly small amount of old people.

http://mawillits.files.wordpress.com...

China's aging population is a well-known problem. The OP got it right.

http://thediplomat.com...

From my knowledge, China's over population has never been a extreme concern. I know that the life expectancy in China is 72, and that's lower then half of Africa believe it or not.

From my classes (not saying they're right, just saying), overpopulation was what brought down the Qing dynasty. The idea is that the Taiping Rebellion was resultant from overpopulation that much of the world also experienced around that time due to improved agricultural elements. Coupled with the Opium wars, and you got more unrest than you did elsewhere.

Its both a pro and a con. China is large, and has plenty of untapped resources and markets. Especially within the Turkish provinces. The con would be balancing the relative cost of a person to the amount they can add to the economy.

I guess a study would have to be done for this, except its hard to find any not produced by the CCP.


3)Partially true, but upon quick examination of the markets pointed out, China already owns majority investment. Especially within the African nations, which are the second place to look for cheap labor.

The underlined is incomprehensible and nonsensical. China's labor market is unquestionably becoming less competitive as its standard of living rises. This is a direct result of the alleviation of poverty you mentioned earlier.

Anyways, I would immediately fact check everything that you said, as most of its false.

Most of it is true. Regardless, China doesn't need to grow at 10+% annually to surpass the the US before 2030.

China will most likely surpass the US. The GDP isn't a good indicator of who would be relatively stronger though in this case. Idealist was spot on about national output though. China should gear itself more towards its untapped markets.

GDP is an excellent indicator of relative strength. It's just not a good indicator of quality of life...for that you need GDP per capita.

Anyways, I don't care if China is wealthier, as long as that pushes them to give more rights and improve the welfare of its citizens. The GDP growth is a good sign, but a lot of that money should be given to the people.

The government makes a huge influx of revenue each year, but the average citizen is living on 2$ a day, For a country that's allegedly socialist, they seem to neglect the people quite a bit.

Agree with most of this, but the $2/day line shows how quickly things change in China. I think that's about 5-10 years old...I remember calculating average wages out, and given $6-8k/year, that works out to about $3-4/HOUR, not per day.

Is this based on province? I don't invest a lot of my time into Chinese economics, but I did do some research a little while back on the topic. It was mostly market research though.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
A.K
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:42:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let me just add some additional comments:

-China has relatively few natural resources, especially oil. A lack of oil (which is a big problem in a country of 1 billion people) makes China dependent on Russia, Africa, and the Middle East. Volatility in these regions is dangerous to China.

-China is facing higher political pressure, both internal (at home, such as Ai Weiwei and Bo Xilai) and external (at the UN, other diplomatic forums, and responses to human rights abuses). This is pressuring painful economic reform, towards higher wages and more worker's rights.

-Corruption is still a large issue, despite China's quasi-developed status

-China has massive environmental issues, such as the 16,000 pig carcases found in Shanghai's water supply, and chemical dumping in rivers.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:44:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:37:04 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:17:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 10:57:31 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM, A.K wrote:
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?

I largely agree with the points you've made. One thing people seem to ignore is that China has a population four-times that of the US, so it should have a larger national output. The fact that it doesn't is indicative of a problem all by itself. The average income of a Chinese citizen is a fraction of what an average American brings in, and I find that more important when judging the success of an economic system. And on top of that they are destroying their natural environment in a way which will cost dearly in the near future. Neighboring countries are already complaining about the toxins crossing the border.

Like you, I expect that the Chines system is quickly reaching its peak. I can't help but be reminded of all the books I read about how Japan was going to economically conquer the world back in the 80's. It takes a lot more money to support 1.2 billion people (and all their associated needs), yet the percentage of the Chinese population which is actually producing money instead of consuming it looks set to drop in the future.

China is where Japan was in the 60s. Once China achieves half the success of what South Korea achieved, it will surpass the US. Once China achieves half the success of what Japan achieved, it will surpass BOTH the EU AND the US. Keep in mind that Japan in the 80s was approaching US standards of living. If China approached that level, people wouldn't be talking about whether or not China would take over the world...it would have ALREADY taken over the world.

The OP merely states that China will not be able to grow at the torrid pace at which it's grown historically. That's most certainly true...10+% growth is unsustainable. However, even if it grew at 5% annually, it would become the largest economy of the world in relatively short order.

The underlined is a gross mischaracterization of the economic picture. China could double its consumption rate and still consume less of a percentage of GDP than what we currently consume. Most economists are actually attempting to encourage Chinese consumption to redirect malinvestment to something more sustainable.

Well, I'm not informed enough about this subject to have a serious debate about it, but when it comes to politics all anyone can really do is to wait and see, so we will see. From what I've read, because of it's one-child policy China's mean population has been aging rapidly, and the Chinese have a strong tradition of the young supporting the old. The whole country isn't much bigger than the US, but has four times the people to feed, clothe, provide medical and power for, etc. Many economists have begun to backtrack and to say that China will barely surpass the US economy this century, if they do it at all. I'm no economist, so I rely largely on their predictions. I know that enery will be a large problem for them, and food has always been. Maybe in a decade or so someone will be able to make a prediction with at least some measure of certainty to it.

Yeah, this was my field of study at college...I can talk better about this than I can nukes. =)

You got most of the details right and have a pretty accurate picture of what's going on...only the conclusion is something I would take issue with, because I really think that most of the world is unprepared for China surpassing the US in GDP. I mean, Niall Ferguson thinks it will happen in 3 years...(http://www.newsweek.com...)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:50:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:41:26 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:32:17 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:17:32 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:10:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:30:43 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM, A.K wrote:
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?

1) GDP is growing at 11% a year, the highest of nation. This will continue to grow for a long time, as China still has a lot in poverty to be uplifted, and a unlimited amount of resources and markets.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn...

Inaccurate and outdated. China's GDP growth was 7.5% last year. What you said was consensus before 2008, but there is some doubt going forward due to possible malinvestment.

Isn't the GDP growth rate set at 8% for China in 2014 though?

Regardless, the trend is downward. There may be some minor rises here and there, but it will unquestionably converge with developed economies as China itself develops.

Yeah, I already pointed this out. 2% is the average GDP growth for a developed nation. His theory on the downward trend is actually a good thing.

You pointed out the opposite, that Chinese GDP will grow beyond 11% annually.

http://www.theguardian.com...

2)Not true in the slightest. The majority of Chinese are within working age. In fact, they have way to much populous, and they have n incredibly small amount of old people.

http://mawillits.files.wordpress.com...

China's aging population is a well-known problem. The OP got it right.

http://thediplomat.com...

From my knowledge, China's over population has never been a extreme concern. I know that the life expectancy in China is 72, and that's lower then half of Africa believe it or not.

From my classes (not saying they're right, just saying), overpopulation was what brought down the Qing dynasty. The idea is that the Taiping Rebellion was resultant from overpopulation that much of the world also experienced around that time due to improved agricultural elements. Coupled with the Opium wars, and you got more unrest than you did elsewhere.

Its both a pro and a con. China is large, and has plenty of untapped resources and markets. Especially within the Turkish provinces. The con would be balancing the relative cost of a person to the amount they can add to the economy.

I guess a study would have to be done for this, except its hard to find any not produced by the CCP.

There's not enough arable land in China. China is currently buying farmland worldwide, and this WITH the one-child policy in effect. Not only that, if Chinese meat-consumption ever rises to developed market rates, there won't be enough land in the world to feed China.

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com...

3)Partially true, but upon quick examination of the markets pointed out, China already owns majority investment. Especially within the African nations, which are the second place to look for cheap labor.

The underlined is incomprehensible and nonsensical. China's labor market is unquestionably becoming less competitive as its standard of living rises. This is a direct result of the alleviation of poverty you mentioned earlier.

Anyways, I would immediately fact check everything that you said, as most of its false.

Most of it is true. Regardless, China doesn't need to grow at 10+% annually to surpass the the US before 2030.

China will most likely surpass the US. The GDP isn't a good indicator of who would be relatively stronger though in this case. Idealist was spot on about national output though. China should gear itself more towards its untapped markets.

GDP is an excellent indicator of relative strength. It's just not a good indicator of quality of life...for that you need GDP per capita.

Anyways, I don't care if China is wealthier, as long as that pushes them to give more rights and improve the welfare of its citizens. The GDP growth is a good sign, but a lot of that money should be given to the people.

The government makes a huge influx of revenue each year, but the average citizen is living on 2$ a day, For a country that's allegedly socialist, they seem to neglect the people quite a bit.

Agree with most of this, but the $2/day line shows how quickly things change in China. I think that's about 5-10 years old...I remember calculating average wages out, and given $6-8k/year, that works out to about $3-4/HOUR, not per day.

Is this based on province? I don't invest a lot of my time into Chinese economics, but I did do some research a little while back on the topic. It was mostly market research though.

It's based on average annual income, and then just doing a 40hr/week calculation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 12:00:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:50:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:41:26 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:32:17 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:17:32 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:10:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:30:43 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM, A.K wrote:
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?

1) GDP is growing at 11% a year, the highest of nation. This will continue to grow for a long time, as China still has a lot in poverty to be uplifted, and a unlimited amount of resources and markets.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn...

Inaccurate and outdated. China's GDP growth was 7.5% last year. What you said was consensus before 2008, but there is some doubt going forward due to possible malinvestment.

Isn't the GDP growth rate set at 8% for China in 2014 though?

Regardless, the trend is downward. There may be some minor rises here and there, but it will unquestionably converge with developed economies as China itself develops.

Yeah, I already pointed this out. 2% is the average GDP growth for a developed nation. His theory on the downward trend is actually a good thing.

You pointed out the opposite, that Chinese GDP will grow beyond 11% annually.

That's a good sign, as always. The rule of the thumb, is that a developed nation should grow 2% a year to stay healthy.

I must be confused, as I thought we were talking about whether the GDP decline was a good or bad sign? Which IMO it is.

http://www.theguardian.com...

2)Not true in the slightest. The majority of Chinese are within working age. In fact, they have way to much populous, and they have n incredibly small amount of old people.

http://mawillits.files.wordpress.com...

China's aging population is a well-known problem. The OP got it right.

http://thediplomat.com...

From my knowledge, China's over population has never been a extreme concern. I know that the life expectancy in China is 72, and that's lower then half of Africa believe it or not.

From my classes (not saying they're right, just saying), overpopulation was what brought down the Qing dynasty. The idea is that the Taiping Rebellion was resultant from overpopulation that much of the world also experienced around that time due to improved agricultural elements. Coupled with the Opium wars, and you got more unrest than you did elsewhere.

Its both a pro and a con. China is large, and has plenty of untapped resources and markets. Especially within the Turkish provinces. The con would be balancing the relative cost of a person to the amount they can add to the economy.

I guess a study would have to be done for this, except its hard to find any not produced by the CCP.

There's not enough arable land in China. China is currently buying farmland worldwide, and this WITH the one-child policy in effect. Not only that, if Chinese meat-consumption ever rises to developed market rates, there won't be enough land in the world to feed China.

I said I don't agree or disagree with you. I was just browsing government websites to find some studies on how much it costs for the government to sustain a citizen, and how much that citizen can in return add to the economy.

From what I researched thus far, is that China's eastern and northern lands are completely filled. While the western Turkish, Mongolian, and Tibetan lands have terrible farm land, although they seem to have an infinite amount of untapped resources which the government can't yet afford to produce. The west is where most of the poverty resides as well.


http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com...

3)Partially true, but upon quick examination of the markets pointed out, China already owns majority investment. Especially within the African nations, which are the second place to look for cheap labor.

The underlined is incomprehensible and nonsensical. China's labor market is unquestionably becoming less competitive as its standard of living rises. This is a direct result of the alleviation of poverty you mentioned earlier.

Anyways, I would immediately fact check everything that you said, as most of its false.

Most of it is true. Regardless, China doesn't need to grow at 10+% annually to surpass the the US before 2030.

China will most likely surpass the US. The GDP isn't a good indicator of who would be relatively stronger though in this case. Idealist was spot on about national output though. China should gear itself more towards its untapped markets.

GDP is an excellent indicator of relative strength. It's just not a good indicator of quality of life...for that you need GDP per capita.

Anyways, I don't care if China is wealthier, as long as that pushes them to give more rights and improve the welfare of its citizens. The GDP growth is a good sign, but a lot of that money should be given to the people.

The government makes a huge influx of revenue each year, but the average citizen is living on 2$ a day, For a country that's allegedly socialist, they seem to neglect the people quite a bit.

Agree with most of this, but the $2/day line shows how quickly things change in China. I think that's about 5-10 years old...I remember calculating average wages out, and given $6-8k/year, that works out to about $3-4/HOUR, not per day.

Is this based on province? I don't invest a lot of my time into Chinese economics, but I did do some research a little while back on the topic. It was mostly market research though.

It's based on average annual income, and then just doing a 40hr/week calculation.

Alright. I'm very motivated now to research this further now that I learned some new information. The one thing I definitely agree with him with, is the fact that most of Africa can now afford to produce cheaper goods then China. This is a threat to the Chinese economy, and a good thing for Africa's. Countries like Ethiopia may surpass China for GDP growth in the next 5 years.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 12:02:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I must say, I'm surprised to see so many new people in the economics forum. Wrcriw is perhaps the last one I would of figured to enter here.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 12:09:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:42:33 PM, A.K wrote:
Let me just add some additional comments:

-China has relatively few natural resources, especially oil. A lack of oil (which is a big problem in a country of 1 billion people) makes China dependent on Russia, Africa, and the Middle East. Volatility in these regions is dangerous to China.

This one is certainly not true. China has the biggest cotton, gold, farming, and fishing industries in the world. This is upsetting, and I would appreciate it if you sourced this claim. Exports make up 30% of the GDP, according to the ITA.

-China is facing higher political pressure, both internal (at home, such as Ai Weiwei and Bo Xilai) and external (at the UN, other diplomatic forums, and responses to human rights abuses). This is pressuring painful economic reform, towards higher wages and more worker's rights.

I wont deny the political pressure faced on China, along with social pressure. China's unstable, but more contained then other developing nations. I'm divided. I would like to see them become democratic, but they are not ready for that.

-Corruption is still a large issue, despite China's quasi-developed status

China ranks 80 on the CPI, which is not meeting the standards of the developed west, but also not as bad as most of the developed world.

-China has massive environmental issues, such as the 16,000 pig carcases found in Shanghai's water supply, and chemical dumping in rivers.

Indeed they do, but the US certainly has the most green issues. Kind of got off topic from economics though. Now your just dissing the country. Start using reply and quote

Questionaire

Kill who.....

- Xi Jingping

- Barack Obama

- Queen Elizabeth

That should answer your question.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 12:12:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:44:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:37:04 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:17:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 10:57:31 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM, A.K wrote:
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?

I largely agree with the points you've made. One thing people seem to ignore is that China has a population four-times that of the US, so it should have a larger national output. The fact that it doesn't is indicative of a problem all by itself. The average income of a Chinese citizen is a fraction of what an average American brings in, and I find that more important when judging the success of an economic system. And on top of that they are destroying their natural environment in a way which will cost dearly in the near future. Neighboring countries are already complaining about the toxins crossing the border.

Like you, I expect that the Chines system is quickly reaching its peak. I can't help but be reminded of all the books I read about how Japan was going to economically conquer the world back in the 80's. It takes a lot more money to support 1.2 billion people (and all their associated needs), yet the percentage of the Chinese population which is actually producing money instead of consuming it looks set to drop in the future.

China is where Japan was in the 60s. Once China achieves half the success of what South Korea achieved, it will surpass the US. Once China achieves half the success of what Japan achieved, it will surpass BOTH the EU AND the US. Keep in mind that Japan in the 80s was approaching US standards of living. If China approached that level, people wouldn't be talking about whether or not China would take over the world...it would have ALREADY taken over the world.

The OP merely states that China will not be able to grow at the torrid pace at which it's grown historically. That's most certainly true...10+% growth is unsustainable. However, even if it grew at 5% annually, it would become the largest economy of the world in relatively short order.

The underlined is a gross mischaracterization of the economic picture. China could double its consumption rate and still consume less of a percentage of GDP than what we currently consume. Most economists are actually attempting to encourage Chinese consumption to redirect malinvestment to something more sustainable.

Well, I'm not informed enough about this subject to have a serious debate about it, but when it comes to politics all anyone can really do is to wait and see, so we will see. From what I've read, because of it's one-child policy China's mean population has been aging rapidly, and the Chinese have a strong tradition of the young supporting the old. The whole country isn't much bigger than the US, but has four times the people to feed, clothe, provide medical and power for, etc. Many economists have begun to backtrack and to say that China will barely surpass the US economy this century, if they do it at all. I'm no economist, so I rely largely on their predictions. I know that enery will be a large problem for them, and food has always been. Maybe in a decade or so someone will be able to make a prediction with at least some measure of certainty to it.

Yeah, this was my field of study at college...I can talk better about this than I can nukes. =)

You got most of the details right and have a pretty accurate picture of what's going on...only the conclusion is something I would take issue with, because I really think that most of the world is unprepared for China surpassing the US in GDP. I mean, Niall Ferguson thinks it will happen in 3 years...(http://www.newsweek.com...)

An interesting article, and Ferguson is definitely well-educated in economics. Still, there are other experts who disagree. One of the most troubling things for me is that I've come across a number of articles written by Chinese businessmen themselves, or those who do business with them, and most didn't seem to be happy with the way things are going. One common complaint was the corruption so prevalent in the Chinese economy. Much of the production is controlled by the military, and the military has very strong influence. The still-Communist government seems desperate to do whatever it must to ensure the military's loyalty, so that's a wildcard in the deck. It can be a dangerous thing to allow capitalism to flourish on a large scale in a communist country, can't it? What if internal conflict leads to a collapse in the power structure? China is also making a lot of enemies, and even though they are seriously trying to replace Silicon Valley with a version of their own, not many tech gurus seem to be taking that seriously. Anyway, like I said, I'm no expert on the subject. I do know that things hastily built usually are vulnerable to sudden failure, and just a few decades ago China was a third-world country. Honestly I wish them the best in the future, because the last thing we need is for them to fail and drag everyone else down along with them. Thanks for the link. I used to be internet friends with a Chinese-American with whom I had a "friendly rivalry", lol. Lately I haven't been following it much.
A.K
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 12:21:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 12:09:43 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:42:33 PM, A.K wrote:
Let me just add some additional comments:

-China has relatively few natural resources, especially oil. A lack of oil (which is a big problem in a country of 1 billion people) makes China dependent on Russia, Africa, and the Middle East. Volatility in these regions is dangerous to China.

This one is certainly not true. China has the biggest cotton, gold, farming, and fishing industries in the world. This is upsetting, and I would appreciate it if you sourced this claim. Exports make up 30% of the GDP, according to the ITA.

I did not say anything about cotton, gold, farming, or fishing. And while China does have a lot of farmland, their technology is woefully inefficient. Fields are flooded to irrigate crops. And China's exports are mostly due to their factories.

http://www.npr.org...

Also: 1/5th of China's farmland is contaminated.


-China is facing higher political pressure, both internal (at home, such as Ai Weiwei and Bo Xilai) and external (at the UN, other diplomatic forums, and responses to human rights abuses). This is pressuring painful economic reform, towards higher wages and more worker's rights.

I wont deny the political pressure faced on China, along with social pressure. China's unstable, but more contained then other developing nations. I'm divided. I would like to see them become democratic, but they are not ready for that.

-Corruption is still a large issue, despite China's quasi-developed status

China ranks 80 on the CPI, which is not meeting the standards of the developed west, but also not as bad as most of the developed world.

Fair enough, but you cannot deny that this is an issue.


-China has massive environmental issues, such as the 16,000 pig carcases found in Shanghai's water supply, and chemical dumping in rivers.

Indeed they do, but the US certainly has the most green issues. Kind of got off topic from economics though. Now your just dissing the country.

Actually, these are economic issues: they will require signficant government investment to fix.


Questionaire

Kill who.....

- Xi Jingping

- Barack Obama

- Queen Elizabeth

Err, none. I generally am not a fan of assassination.

Would you like to debate this issue?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 12:44:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 12:12:30 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:44:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:37:04 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:17:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 10:57:31 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM, A.K wrote:
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?

I largely agree with the points you've made. One thing people seem to ignore is that China has a population four-times that of the US, so it should have a larger national output. The fact that it doesn't is indicative of a problem all by itself. The average income of a Chinese citizen is a fraction of what an average American brings in, and I find that more important when judging the success of an economic system. And on top of that they are destroying their natural environment in a way which will cost dearly in the near future. Neighboring countries are already complaining about the toxins crossing the border.

Like you, I expect that the Chines system is quickly reaching its peak. I can't help but be reminded of all the books I read about how Japan was going to economically conquer the world back in the 80's. It takes a lot more money to support 1.2 billion people (and all their associated needs), yet the percentage of the Chinese population which is actually producing money instead of consuming it looks set to drop in the future.

China is where Japan was in the 60s. Once China achieves half the success of what South Korea achieved, it will surpass the US. Once China achieves half the success of what Japan achieved, it will surpass BOTH the EU AND the US. Keep in mind that Japan in the 80s was approaching US standards of living. If China approached that level, people wouldn't be talking about whether or not China would take over the world...it would have ALREADY taken over the world.

The OP merely states that China will not be able to grow at the torrid pace at which it's grown historically. That's most certainly true...10+% growth is unsustainable. However, even if it grew at 5% annually, it would become the largest economy of the world in relatively short order.

The underlined is a gross mischaracterization of the economic picture. China could double its consumption rate and still consume less of a percentage of GDP than what we currently consume. Most economists are actually attempting to encourage Chinese consumption to redirect malinvestment to something more sustainable.

Well, I'm not informed enough about this subject to have a serious debate about it, but when it comes to politics all anyone can really do is to wait and see, so we will see. From what I've read, because of it's one-child policy China's mean population has been aging rapidly, and the Chinese have a strong tradition of the young supporting the old. The whole country isn't much bigger than the US, but has four times the people to feed, clothe, provide medical and power for, etc. Many economists have begun to backtrack and to say that China will barely surpass the US economy this century, if they do it at all. I'm no economist, so I rely largely on their predictions. I know that enery will be a large problem for them, and food has always been. Maybe in a decade or so someone will be able to make a prediction with at least some measure of certainty to it.

Yeah, this was my field of study at college...I can talk better about this than I can nukes. =)

You got most of the details right and have a pretty accurate picture of what's going on...only the conclusion is something I would take issue with, because I really think that most of the world is unprepared for China surpassing the US in GDP. I mean, Niall Ferguson thinks it will happen in 3 years...(http://www.newsweek.com...)

An interesting article, and Ferguson is definitely well-educated in economics. Still, there are other experts who disagree. One of the most troubling things for me is that I've come across a number of articles written by Chinese businessmen themselves, or those who do business with them, and most didn't seem to be happy with the way things are going. One common complaint was the corruption so prevalent in the Chinese economy. Much of the production is controlled by the military, and the military has very strong influence. The still-Communist government seems desperate to do whatever it must to ensure the military's loyalty, so that's a wildcard in the deck. It can be a dangerous thing to allow capitalism to flourish on a large scale in a communist country, can't it? What if internal conflict leads to a collapse in the power structure? China is also making a lot of enemies, and even though they are seriously trying to replace Silicon Valley with a version of their own, not many tech gurus seem to be taking that seriously. Anyway, like I said, I'm no expert on the subject. I do know that things hastily built usually are vulnerable to sudden failure, and just a few decades ago China was a third-world country. Honestly I wish them the best in the future, because the last thing we need is for them to fail and drag everyone else down along with them. Thanks for the link. I used to be internet friends with a Chinese-American with whom I had a "friendly rivalry", lol. Lately I haven't been following it much.

Yeah, I remembered watching a video about Ferguson's prediction and I couldn't believe it, but it's from the IMF, so it stuck in my head. Personally I stick to 2030 even if that's probably far too conservative on my end, because it accounts for all the hurdles you mention. The underlined sounds prescient, but then I have to recall that Taiwan, SK, and Japan did the same beforehand and with similar haste.

I'm in the camp that believes that China is CINO, "Communist in name only", mainly because I see communism as being contrasted with capitalism, not democracy. Whatever, I guess, lol. What's the saying? A cat that catches mice...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 12:48:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 12:21:02 AM, A.K wrote:
At 4/19/2014 12:09:43 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:42:33 PM, A.K wrote:
Let me just add some additional comments:

-China has relatively few natural resources, especially oil. A lack of oil (which is a big problem in a country of 1 billion people) makes China dependent on Russia, Africa, and the Middle East. Volatility in these regions is dangerous to China.

This one is certainly not true. China has the biggest cotton, gold, farming, and fishing industries in the world. This is upsetting, and I would appreciate it if you sourced this claim. Exports make up 30% of the GDP, according to the ITA.

I did not say anything about cotton, gold, farming, or fishing. And while China does have a lot of farmland, their technology is woefully inefficient. Fields are flooded to irrigate crops. And China's exports are mostly due to their factories.

http://www.npr.org...

Also: 1/5th of China's farmland is contaminated.


-China is facing higher political pressure, both internal (at home, such as Ai Weiwei and Bo Xilai) and external (at the UN, other diplomatic forums, and responses to human rights abuses). This is pressuring painful economic reform, towards higher wages and more worker's rights.

I wont deny the political pressure faced on China, along with social pressure. China's unstable, but more contained then other developing nations. I'm divided. I would like to see them become democratic, but they are not ready for that.

-Corruption is still a large issue, despite China's quasi-developed status

China ranks 80 on the CPI, which is not meeting the standards of the developed west, but also not as bad as most of the developed world.

Fair enough, but you cannot deny that this is an issue.


-China has massive environmental issues, such as the 16,000 pig carcases found in Shanghai's water supply, and chemical dumping in rivers.

Indeed they do, but the US certainly has the most green issues. Kind of got off topic from economics though. Now your just dissing the country.

Actually, these are economic issues: they will require signficant government investment to fix.

lol, I disagree. Pollution got exported to China, and when Chinese wages rise, Chinese outsourcing will outsource their pollution problem as well. That's my own theory at any rate.

Questionaire

Kill who.....

- Xi Jingping

- Barack Obama

- Queen Elizabeth

Err, none. I generally am not a fan of assassination.

Would you like to debate this issue?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 12:59:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 12:44:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/19/2014 12:12:30 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:44:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:37:04 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:17:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/18/2014 10:57:31 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:07:52 PM, A.K wrote:
I firmly believe that China's economic success is unlikely to persist further into the 21st century.

First, China's GDP growth has been flagging for years. Look up a chart of GDP growth in China.

Second, China has major demographic issues. Before Deng Xiaoping's one child policy, Mao encouraged people to have as many children as possible. Thus, China had a large young population under Mao, which was later replaced by a smaller young population. Now there are substantial amounts of old people that are retiring and leaving the workforce, but not enough younger people to support the Chinese economy and tax base.

Third, wages are rising rapidly, which means that China is less competitive. China's GDP growth has come from this competitiveness. This also threatens painful political and economic reforms as the average Chinese becomes wealthier and better educated.

Fourth, other emerging markets, such as Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey (despite a weak Lira), and others, are competing for foreign investment that used to go to the BRIC(S) (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Any thoughts?

I largely agree with the points you've made. One thing people seem to ignore is that China has a population four-times that of the US, so it should have a larger national output. The fact that it doesn't is indicative of a problem all by itself. The average income of a Chinese citizen is a fraction of what an average American brings in, and I find that more important when judging the success of an economic system. And on top of that they are destroying their natural environment in a way which will cost dearly in the near future. Neighboring countries are already complaining about the toxins crossing the border.

Like you, I expect that the Chines system is quickly reaching its peak. I can't help but be reminded of all the books I read about how Japan was going to economically conquer the world back in the 80's. It takes a lot more money to support 1.2 billion people (and all their associated needs), yet the percentage of the Chinese population which is actually producing money instead of consuming it looks set to drop in the future.

China is where Japan was in the 60s. Once China achieves half the success of what South Korea achieved, it will surpass the US. Once China achieves half the success of what Japan achieved, it will surpass BOTH the EU AND the US. Keep in mind that Japan in the 80s was approaching US standards of living. If China approached that level, people wouldn't be talking about whether or not China would take over the world...it would have ALREADY taken over the world.

The OP merely states that China will not be able to grow at the torrid pace at which it's grown historically. That's most certainly true...10+% growth is unsustainable. However, even if it grew at 5% annually, it would become the largest economy of the world in relatively short order.

The underlined is a gross mischaracterization of the economic picture. China could double its consumption rate and still consume less of a percentage of GDP than what we currently consume. Most economists are actually attempting to encourage Chinese consumption to redirect malinvestment to something more sustainable.


Yeah, I remembered watching a video about Ferguson's prediction and I couldn't believe it, but it's from the IMF, so it stuck in my head. Personally I stick to 2030 even if that's probably far too conservative on my end, because it accounts for all the hurdles you mention. The underlined sounds prescient, but then I have to recall that Taiwan, SK, and Japan did the same beforehand and with similar haste.

I'm in the camp that believes that China is CINO, "Communist in name only", mainly because I see communism as being contrasted with capitalism, not democracy. Whatever, I guess, lol. What's the saying? A cat that catches mice...

Yep. I don't know how much you read, but have you read any Tom Clancy novels? The one he wrote about a fictional Chinese war was call The Bear and the Dragon, and it highlighted some of the problems caused by the mix of communism and capitalism. Sooner or later it's going to come to a head, and the government is either going to have to cede to elections or they are going to have to repress the people, as in Tiananmen Square. It's sobering to think that such a big part of the future of the world today can rest on such a simple thing as who is in office at one particular time.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 5:49:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 12:59:59 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/19/2014 12:44:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Yep. I don't know how much you read, but have you read any Tom Clancy novels? The one he wrote about a fictional Chinese war was call The Bear and the Dragon, and it highlighted some of the problems caused by the mix of communism and capitalism. Sooner or later it's going to come to a head, and the government is either going to have to cede to elections or they are going to have to repress the people, as in Tiananmen Square. It's sobering to think that such a big part of the future of the world today can rest on such a simple thing as who is in office at one particular time.

lol, I don't read much fiction I'm afraid...

It's an interesting premise and quite accurate, IMHO. Personally, I've come to my own conclusions on several aspects of politics in the region. One conclusion I've reached that stemmed from my time in Korea is that a modern conception of east Asian society can be largely characterized by one word: martial. Countries like SK and Taiwan endured nearly 40 years of martial law, and Japan is well known for bushido culture. China is not much different...after over 100 years of defacto civil war, a defacto military dictatorship named the Chinese Communist Party takes over (it would have been a dictatorship had the KMT won under Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek as well). Obedience to authority, "collectivism", blah blah etc...all of this is less an enduring cultural trait than it is a necessity borne out of various exigencies.

To give an example of contrast where martial culture is not emphasized in the region during a time of peace, even Japan during the Tokugawa era downplayed the martial element of samurai culture when there were no wars to wage...the samurai was seen in a similar vein to the scholar-officials of China...they possessed a title, at times bought by merchants to increase their social standing...very much like how many corporate executives in America are themselves born into wealth and "buy" a position in a company that stems from connections borne from wealth, privilege, and a nice, $300,000 business degree (think George W. Bush here). There was a very corporate element to samurai title transfers that resembles both American corporate culture and Chinese gentry culture (the two of which IMHO are eerily similar)...many times, samurai families adopted heirs outside the family in order to ensure that someone that was capable continued the family name. That capability did not necessarily entail martial prowess and was much more focused on administrative and business acumen.

Anyway, this contrasting example aside, the modern martial mentality permeates every aspect of east Asian society, especially the school system where it is of course most effective on impressionable youth. My discussions with many Koreans gave me a mental image of their school system being something that resembles boot camp in the military, with uniforms, corporal punishment, obedience to rank and authority... hell, I taught at an academy where the kids visited their families once a month for a couple hours, and was almost always greeted with kids in a dimly lighted area scrubbing floors and cleaning toilets...sounds familiar? These kids were considered privileged with a good shot at a good college.

So, I most definitely agree that there will be an event that more than likely will entail the rescinding of the CCP's single-party status and it will be a big decision...but it was the same decision that SK and Taiwan reached when their time came, and only after pronounced economic development, and only after decades of de facto martial law (which is what I consider CCP rule to be). Even considering events like Tienanmen, the CCP post-Mao has actually been far more benign than what is known of Taiwan and SK, both of which committed Stalinesque mass cullings and ran gestapo-esque police squads during their periods of martial law.

Given the precedent, I don't see much difference qualitatively between China, Taiwan, and SK, but a gigantic difference (pun intended) quantitatively. As long as China doesn't face any acute security threats stemming from its sheer size, China will more than likely liberalize. I don't think this is some sort culturally unique property to any society. To me, it's simply a function of time and prosperity, with the latter allowing a society to "buy 'freedom'". I'll stop there before I descend into ideological cynicism, lol.

Anyway, the tl;dr version of this is that modern east Asian culture = martial...and it is one borne much more out of necessity than tradition. If I were to make a prediction, China will more than likely cede this cultural element at least at an official level around the same time its GDP surpasses the US. It will probably be a big event, and like the 2008 and now the 2014 Olympics in Beijing and Sochi, will probably look like its own version of a Game of Thrones wedding.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 4:49:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 5:49:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/19/2014 12:59:59 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/19/2014 12:44:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Yep. I don't know how much you read, but have you read any Tom Clancy novels? The one he wrote about a fictional Chinese war was call The Bear and the Dragon, and it highlighted some of the problems caused by the mix of communism and capitalism. Sooner or later it's going to come to a head, and the government is either going to have to cede to elections or they are going to have to repress the people, as in Tiananmen Square. It's sobering to think that such a big part of the future of the world today can rest on such a simple thing as who is in office at one particular time.

lol, I don't read much fiction I'm afraid...

You ought to try it. Especially writers like Tom Clancy and John Steinbeck, who take fact and fiction and mix them together. Like Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge. :)

It's an interesting premise and quite accurate, IMHO. Personally, I've come to my own conclusions on several aspects of politics in the region. One conclusion I've reached that stemmed from my time in Korea is that a modern conception of east Asian society can be largely characterized by one word: martial. Countries like SK and Taiwan endured nearly 40 years of martial law, and Japan is well known for bushido culture. China is not much different...after over 100 years of defacto civil war, a defacto military dictatorship named the Chinese Communist Party takes over (it would have been a dictatorship had the KMT won under Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek as well). Obedience to authority, "collectivism", blah blah etc...all of this is less an enduring cultural trait than it is a necessity borne out of various exigencies.

Yeah, I've always been fascinated by Eastern history and culture, especially in Japan and China. There is something about the mix of their martial nature and their devotion to honor which I find sort of appealing. The idea of what WW3 might have been like if it had been fought between NATO and the USSR (without nuclear weapons) is a personal curiosity of mine. That's where I served my time overseas, not far from the East German border. I participated in a few exercises, most notably the REFORGER exercise in 1982, which involved forces from all the NATO countries and took-place over nearly half of West Germany. Having trained for that fight, I've just always wondered how it might have played-out.

To give an example of contrast where martial culture is not emphasized in the region during a time of peace, even Japan during the Tokugawa era downplayed the martial element of samurai culture when there were no wars to wage...the samurai was seen in a similar vein to the scholar-officials of China...they possessed a title, at times bought by merchants to increase their social standing...very much like how many corporate executives in America are themselves born into wealth and "buy" a position in a company that stems from connections borne from wealth, privilege, and a nice, $300,000 business degree (think George W. Bush here). There was a very corporate element to samurai title transfers that resembles both American corporate culture and Chinese gentry culture (the two of which IMHO are eerily similar)...many times, samurai families adopted heirs outside the family in order to ensure that someone that was capable continued the family name. That capability did not necessarily entail martial prowess and was much more focused on administrative and business acumen.

So you are fascinated by Japanese culture too, huh? Did that influence your choice of avatar here on DDO? It sort of fits. MacArthur practically wrote their modern constitution. A lot of Japanese have admired the man. I have two daughters who are really into Japanese culture, too. Of course today it's mostly about ninjas and their cartoons. Not as many people really bother to learn what it meant to be a samurai in feudal Japan.

Anyway, this contrasting example aside, the modern martial mentality permeates every aspect of east Asian society, especially the school system where it is of course most effective on impressionable youth. My discussions with many Koreans gave me a mental image of their school system being something that resembles boot camp in the military, with uniforms, corporal punishment, obedience to rank and authority... hell, I taught at an academy where the kids visited their families once a month for a couple hours, and was almost always greeted with kids in a dimly lighted area scrubbing floors and cleaning toilets...sounds familiar? These kids were considered privileged with a good shot at a good college.

Do you reckon this might be why the North Korean leadership has been able to control their own people for so long despite all their failures? They certainly like to blame everything that happens to them on South Korea or the US, and sell themselves to their own public as if they were actually a superpower defending the world against some kind of aggressive coalition of democracies.

So, I most definitely agree that there will be an event that more than likely will entail the rescinding of the CCP's single-party status and it will be a big decision...but it was the same decision that SK and Taiwan reached when their time came, and only after pronounced economic development, and only after decades of de facto martial law (which is what I consider CCP rule to be). Even considering events like Tienanmen, the CCP post-Mao has actually been far more benign than what is known of Taiwan and SK, both of which committed Stalinesque mass cullings and ran gestapo-esque police squads during their periods of martial law.

Well, the big difference being that S. Korea and Taiwan were never communist. I've read a lot of discussion over how much control the CCP still holds over the military in China, and they have definitely been able to use nationalism to their own advantage in recent years. Oftentimes in the past totalitarian governments have lashed-out at other countries when they felt threatened by revolution. Even in the West it's a common tactic to deflect domestic unrest.

Given the precedent, I don't see much difference qualitatively between China, Taiwan, and SK, but a gigantic difference (pun intended) quantitatively. As long as China doesn't face any acute security threats stemming from its sheer size, China will more than likely liberalize. I don't think this is some sort culturally unique property to any society. To me, it's simply a function of time and prosperity, with the latter allowing a society to "buy 'freedom'". I'll stop there before I descend into ideological cynicism, lol.

It's definitely an interesting topic. Most Chinese still believe that they are the "Middle Kingdom," or the center of the world. They have lots of good reasons for feeling resentment toward the West over how they were treated for so long. I'd like to think that the age of big wars was over, but it'll take some more time for me to become convinced of it.

Anyway, the tl;dr version of this is that modern east Asian culture = martial...and it is one borne much more out of necessity than tradition. If I were to make a prediction, China will more than likely cede this cultural element at least at an official level around the same time its GDP surpasses the US. It will probably be a big event, and like the 2008 and now the 2014 Olympics in Beijing and Sochi, will probably look like its own version of a Game of Thrones wedding.

You would probably find this article interesting: http://www.economist.com...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 6:26:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 4:49:02 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/19/2014 5:49:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

lol, I don't read much fiction I'm afraid...

You ought to try it. Especially writers like Tom Clancy and John Steinbeck, who take fact and fiction and mix them together. Like Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge. :)

I probably should. =)

It's an interesting premise and quite accurate, IMHO. Personally, I've come to my own conclusions on several aspects of politics in the region. One conclusion I've reached that stemmed from my time in Korea is that a modern conception of east Asian society can be largely characterized by one word: martial. Countries like SK and Taiwan endured nearly 40 years of martial law, and Japan is well known for bushido culture. China is not much different...after over 100 years of defacto civil war, a defacto military dictatorship named the Chinese Communist Party takes over (it would have been a dictatorship had the KMT won under Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek as well). Obedience to authority, "collectivism", blah blah etc...all of this is less an enduring cultural trait than it is a necessity borne out of various exigencies.

Yeah, I've always been fascinated by Eastern history and culture, especially in Japan and China. There is something about the mix of their martial nature and their devotion to honor which I find sort of appealing. The idea of what WW3 might have been like if it had been fought between NATO and the USSR (without nuclear weapons) is a personal curiosity of mine. That's where I served my time overseas, not far from the East German border. I participated in a few exercises, most notably the REFORGER exercise in 1982, which involved forces from all the NATO countries and took-place over nearly half of West Germany. Having trained for that fight, I've just always wondered how it might have played-out.

IMHO the USSR would have lost due to American pre-eminence. It constantly amazes me how strong the Russian military is vis a vis its economic base, which is actually quite small...so the idea is that if America militarized to even half the extent that Russia did, NATO would win. That would probably make an interesting debate, I'm sure you're more prepared to defend your perspective than I am currently. =)

Myself I served in SK for most of my contract.

To give an example of contrast where martial culture is not emphasized in the region during a time of peace, even Japan during the Tokugawa era downplayed the martial element of samurai culture when there were no wars to wage...the samurai was seen in a similar vein to the scholar-officials of China...they possessed a title, at times bought by merchants to increase their social standing...very much like how many corporate executives in America are themselves born into wealth and "buy" a position in a company that stems from connections borne from wealth, privilege, and a nice, $300,000 business degree (think George W. Bush here). There was a very corporate element to samurai title transfers that resembles both American corporate culture and Chinese gentry culture (the two of which IMHO are eerily similar)...many times, samurai families adopted heirs outside the family in order to ensure that someone that was capable continued the family name. That capability did not necessarily entail martial prowess and was much more focused on administrative and business acumen.

So you are fascinated by Japanese culture too, huh? Did that influence your choice of avatar here on DDO? It sort of fits. MacArthur practically wrote their modern constitution. A lot of Japanese have admired the man. I have two daughters who are really into Japanese culture, too. Of course today it's mostly about ninjas and their cartoons. Not as many people really bother to learn what it meant to be a samurai in feudal Japan.

That wasn't my area of study...I just happened to take a course on Tokugawa Japan, lol.

I just thought the photo was bad@ss. =)

Anyway, this contrasting example aside, the modern martial mentality permeates every aspect of east Asian society, especially the school system where it is of course most effective on impressionable youth. My discussions with many Koreans gave me a mental image of their school system being something that resembles boot camp in the military, with uniforms, corporal punishment, obedience to rank and authority... hell, I taught at an academy where the kids visited their families once a month for a couple hours, and was almost always greeted with kids in a dimly lighted area scrubbing floors and cleaning toilets...sounds familiar? These kids were considered privileged with a good shot at a good college.

Do you reckon this might be why the North Korean leadership has been able to control their own people for so long despite all their failures? They certainly like to blame everything that happens to them on South Korea or the US, and sell themselves to their own public as if they were actually a superpower defending the world against some kind of aggressive coalition of democracies.

Yeah, the NK leadership is military at its core, no question. That's probably by far the most militarized society in the world. They have no real economy to speak of.

IMHO the real question is why do we feed them? Why do we send them foodstuffs that invariably end up in their military supply depots (this is speculation, given we have no observers there)? IMHO this along with the 6 party talks point to exactly how complicated this situation is...I think it's more complicated politically than even Israel.

We fed them before they had nukes, so appeasement for that reason isn't valid...the reason would have to be something else...but what exactly? Maybe it warms up NK for eventual reunification under a SK banner? That then begs the question as to what interests do China and Russia have in keeping NK as it is as opposed to providing more support of their own? WTF is going on over there?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 6:27:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 4:49:02 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/19/2014 5:49:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

So, I most definitely agree that there will be an event that more than likely will entail the rescinding of the CCP's single-party status and it will be a big decision...but it was the same decision that SK and Taiwan reached when their time came, and only after pronounced economic development, and only after decades of de facto martial law (which is what I consider CCP rule to be). Even considering events like Tienanmen, the CCP post-Mao has actually been far more benign than what is known of Taiwan and SK, both of which committed Stalinesque mass cullings and ran gestapo-esque police squads during their periods of martial law.

Well, the big difference being that S. Korea and Taiwan were never communist. I've read a lot of discussion over how much control the CCP still holds over the military in China, and they have definitely been able to use nationalism to their own advantage in recent years. Oftentimes in the past totalitarian governments have lashed-out at other countries when they felt threatened by revolution. Even in the West it's a common tactic to deflect domestic unrest.

I really don't see much difference between a communist military dictatorship and a non-communist military dictatorship, except that communist ideology is probably more inclined to incite revolution in other countries.

Still, Taiwan was rabidly anti-communist and far more aggressive proportionally vis a vis China while under martial law.

Any argument about how much control the CCP has over its military is IMHO a non-starter. We have complete control over ours. It may not be party-based, but just consider the "civilian sector" to be the equivalent to the CCP. Some people may go so far as to say that the Dem/GOP delineation is artificial, and if that's true, we have a very similar command structure over our military when compared to the CCP, i.e. uniparty control.

Given the precedent, I don't see much difference qualitatively between China, Taiwan, and SK, but a gigantic difference (pun intended) quantitatively. As long as China doesn't face any acute security threats stemming from its sheer size, China will more than likely liberalize. I don't think this is some sort culturally unique property to any society. To me, it's simply a function of time and prosperity, with the latter allowing a society to "buy 'freedom'". I'll stop there before I descend into ideological cynicism, lol.

It's definitely an interesting topic. Most Chinese still believe that they are the "Middle Kingdom," or the center of the world. They have lots of good reasons for feeling resentment toward the West over how they were treated for so long. I'd like to think that the age of big wars was over, but it'll take some more time for me to become convinced of it.

I'm not certain of the "Middle Kingdom" assertion at all (although a good retort would be that obviously the name says it all, lol). I think China has gone through a pronounced humbling phase since contact with the West. I mean, nationalism is nationalism no matter where you go and people will always be somewhat xenophobic/resistant to foreign influence (even here), the point I'm making is that China recognizes its place, and it's nowhere near the top. Even when China surpasses the US in aggregate GDP, the US and the rest of the developed world will still easily be seen as the beacons of civilization due to a much higher standard of living. Xi Jinping has introduced the "Chinese Dream" which IMHO can easily be considered a form of flattery vis a vis the American Dream. That's hardly an arrogant stance.

Fully agree with the underlined.

Anyway, the tl;dr version of this is that modern east Asian culture = martial...and it is one borne much more out of necessity than tradition. If I were to make a prediction, China will more than likely cede this cultural element at least at an official level around the same time its GDP surpasses the US. It will probably be a big event, and like the 2008 and now the 2014 Olympics in Beijing and Sochi, will probably look like its own version of a Game of Thrones wedding.

You would probably find this article interesting: http://www.economist.com...

Very interesting article, thank you. One big takeaway I got from my courses was that what China is currently entering today can easily find parallels with the American progressive era...they just went through their industrialization phase, so the next step would be to ameliorate all the costs of development. It has historical precedence...American historical precedence. =)

I'd say that's a good thing, for China at least, lol. I'm also a realist, so I recognize that the stronger China gets, the more jockeying for #1 there will be in the future, and this is unavoidable.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?