China’s Rise, America’s Fall

[keyser soze]

I found this thoughtful, informative and well written...recommended.


Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?


By Ron Unz | April 18, 2012
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/pudongg.jpg (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/pudongg.jpg)The rise of China surely ranks among the most important world developments of the last 100 years. With America still trapped in its fifth year of economic hardship, and the Chinese economy poised to surpass our own before the end of this decade, China looms very large on the horizon. We are living in the early years of what journalists once dubbed “The Pacific Century,” yet there are worrisome signs it may instead become known as “The Chinese Century.”

But does the Chinese giant have feet of clay? In a recently published book, Why Nations Fail, economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson characterize China’s ruling elites as “extractive”—parasitic and corrupt—and predict that Chinese economic growth will soon falter and decline, while America’s “inclusive” governing institutions have taken us from strength to strength. They argue that a country governed as a one-party state, without the free media or checks and balances of our own democratic system, cannot long prosper in the modern world. The glowing tributes this book has received from a vast array of America’s most prominent public intellectuals, including six Nobel laureates in economics, testifies to the widespread popularity of this optimistic message.

Yet do the facts about China and America really warrant this conclusion?

China Shakes the World

By the late 1970s, three decades of Communist central planning had managed to increase China’s production at a respectable rate, but with tremendous fits and starts, and often at a terrible cost: 35 million or more Chinese had starved to death during the disastrous 1959–1961 famine caused by Mao’s forced industrialization policy of the Great Leap Forward.

China’s population had also grown very rapidly during this period, so the typical standard of living had improved only slightly, perhaps 2 percent per year between 1958 and 1978, and this from an extremely low base. Adjusted for purchasing power, most Chinese in 1980 had an income 60–70 percent below that of the citizens in other major Third World countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Kenya, none of which were considered great economic success stories. In those days, even Haitians were far wealthier than Chinese.


All this began to change very rapidly once Deng Xiaoping initiated his free-market reforms in 1978, first throughout the countryside and eventually in the smaller industrial enterprises of the coastal provinces. By 1985, The Economist ran a cover story praising China’s 700,000,000 peasants for having doubled their agricultural production in just seven years, an achievement almost unprecedented in world history. Meanwhile, China’s newly adopted one-child policy, despite its considerable unpopularity, had sharply reduced population growth rates in a country possessing relatively little arable land.

A combination of slowing population growth and rapidly accelerating economic output has obvious implications for national prosperity. During the three decades to 2010, China achieved perhaps the most rapid sustained rate of economic development in the history of the human species, with its real economy growing almost 40-fold between 1978 and 2010. In 1978, America’s economy was 15 times larger, but according to most international estimates, China is now set to surpass America’s total economic output within just another few years.

Furthermore, the vast majority of China’s newly created economic wealth has flowed to ordinary Chinese workers, who have moved from oxen and bicycles to the verge of automobiles in just a single generation. While median American incomes have been stagnant for almost forty years, those in China have nearly doubled every decade, with the real wages of workers outside the farm-sector rising about 150 percent over the last ten years alone. The Chinese of 1980 were desperately poor compared to Pakistanis, Nigerians, or Kenyans; but today, they are several times wealthier, representing more than a tenfold shift in relative income.

A World Bank report recently highlighted the huge drop in global poverty rates from 1980 to 2008, but critics noted that over 100 percent of that decline came from China alone: the number of Chinese living in dire poverty fell by a remarkable 662 million, while the impoverished population in the rest of the world actually rose by 13 million. And although India is often paired with China in the Western media, a large fraction of Indians have actually grown poorer over time. The bottom half of India’s still rapidly growing population has seen its daily caloric intake steadily decline for the last 30 years, with half of all children under five now being malnourished.

Read the rest...

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/chinas-rise-americas-fall/

[RollingWave]

American really isn't "falling" per say, it's just that China's relative rise is pretty crazy.

[keyser soze]

I disagree...this article does a good job of explaining the realities rather than echoing the hype.

[keyser soze]

For those that may be interested I was referred to this article by an article at Counterpunch...


Weekend Edition April 20-22, 2012 http://www.counterpunch.org/images/printer.gif (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/20/unplugging-americans-from-the-matrix/print)

Unplugging Americans From The Matrix

by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Americans, the British, and Western Europeans are accustomed to thinking of themselves as the representatives of freedom, democracy, and morality in the world. The West passes judgment on the rest of the world as if the West is God and the rest of the world are barbarians in need of chastisement, invasion, and occupation. As readers know, from time to time I raise questions about the validity of the West’s extreme hubris.

China is often a country about which Washington’s moralists get on their high horse.

However, China’s “authoritarian” government is actually more responsive to its people than America’s “elected democratic” government. Moreover, however incomplete on paper the civil liberties of China’s people, the Chinese government has not declared that it can violate with impunity whatever rights Chinese citizens have. And it is not China that is running torture prisons all over the globe.

For some time I have had in mind a realistic comparison of the two countries instead of the standard propagandistic comparison, but Ron Unz has beat me to the task (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/chinas-rise-americas-fall) twice (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/chinese-melamine-and-american-vioxx-a-comparison/)). Unz provides a chance for an education. Don’t miss it.

(for reasons I don't understand I'm unable to provide a link so you'll have to type it in your search bar if you're interested in reading the entire article. It's worth the effort in my opinion.)

[Peter1469]

China has some obstacles to overcome.
1. They have a housing bubble that makes ours look like peanuts.
2. They have an export economy. Citizens in the coastal areas are enjoying the fruits of this and are creating a strong middle class. But the vast majority of Chinese live in the interior and they are dirt poor. They will prevent China's growth unless they can be pushed up at least towards the middle class. This can't be done under an export economy model- especially in a global economic downturn. If China cannot manage a transition from an export economy to a consumer economy, they will not rise much further.

China is also a land power. They have no ability to project power.

China is destined to be a regional power. IMO that is it.

[keyser soze]

So the article had no newz for you then I take it.

[Peter1469]

So the article had no newz for you then I take it.

Oh no, it was a very interesting article. I added my 3 cents.

[keyser soze]

Oh, then you read about the plan to build a huge amount of housing and how they're building infrastructure like high speed rail...6,000 miles worth...makes us look like we're standing still. Oh, we ARE standing still...for like 30+ years...

To your other point about bringing up the dirt poor...they have and are moving into a consumer economy as well. I found the articles comparison of type of government and the human results quite good...especially the part about how corrupt our government is and why.

[Peter1469]

Oh, then you read about the plan to build a huge amount of housing and how they're building infrastructure like high speed rail...6,000 miles worth...makes us look like we're standing still. Oh, we ARE standing still...for like 30+ years...


Yes. And I did mention the really really big housing bubble in my initial comment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPILhiTJv7ECheck this out.

[keyser soze]

Of course you did and the article addresses it as well with their solution.

I also found the comparison of population growth between us and them very interesting...they have achieved stability in their population growth where ours is quite high...

[Peter1469]

I don't disagree that America is in a decline and that we likely won't except it. I am only stating that I think that China will not rise beyond a regional power.
China's methods of controlling population growth can only work in a nation that values community over liberty. The majority of Americans find Chinese methods to be barbaric.

[keyser soze]

They're methods were necessary. All anyone has to do is look at their history of famine to see it was necessary. I also question your assertion that community and liberty are at odds.

I'd seen a similar report (your posted video) not long ago. They need to get busy and either bring the prices down on those places or build affordable housing and it sounds as though they know that. Similar things are happening in this country...we have about 1/4 of Americans officially in poverty now and many homeless all whilst homes sit empty.

I think you're wrong about China remaining regional...where we use hard power and threats of starvation etc. they are using soft power. We are the most hated country in the world at present due to our arrogance.

[annata]

They're methods were necessary. All anyone has to do is look at their history of famine to see it was necessary. I also question your assertion that community and liberty are at odds.

I'd seen a similar report (your posted video) not long ago. They need to get busy and either bring the prices down on those places or build affordable housing and it sounds as though they know that. Similar things are happening in this country...we have about 1/4 of Americans officially in poverty now and many homeless all whilst homes sit empty.

I think you're wrong about China remaining regional...where we use hard power and threats of starvation etc. they are using soft power. We are the most hated country in the world at present due to our arrogance.They are also capable of using hard power -building up their fleet, have the largest land army, excellent GDp growth'
State capitalism does have some advantages.

There are always limitations, but they seem to be on course -i see their power worldwide -now thru trade agreements, but China isn't called the "Middle Kingdom" for no reason, that used to be in relation to Asia, but they are all about projecting their soft power. by all means necessary.And they have hard power capacity, though our tech is still better ( even as they hack it from U.S).

They argue that a country governed as a one-party state, without the free media or checks and balances of our own democratic system, cannot long prosper in the modern world
LOL maybeso, but i see no evidence of this, if anything our 2 party sytem is designed to do nothing, but focus on politcs, not governing

[keyser soze]

Yes they are developing their hard power as well...this is more from the original article..Unplugging Americans From The Matrix...


The Chinese are less threatened by their “extractive elites” than Americans are by their counterparts.

Moreover, it is America’s, not China’s, extractive elites who are bombing, occupying, and droning other countries. As the bumper sticker says, “Be nice to America or we will bring democracy to your country.”

As for economic management, there is no comparison. Unz reports that during the past three decades China has achieved the most rapid rate of economic development in human history. Moreover, most of the new income has flowed into the pockets of Chinese workers, not to the one percent. While American real median incomes have been stagnant for decades, incomes for Chinese workers have doubled every decade for three decades. A recent World Bank report attributes more than 100 percent of the drop in global poverty rates to China’s rise.

In the last decade China’s industrial output quadrupled. China now produces more automobiles than America and Japan combined and accounted for 85 percent of the increase in the world’s production of cars in the past decade.

In 1978 the American economy was 15 times larger than China’s. In the next few years China’s GDP is expected to exceed that of the US.

This is heady stuff providing astonishing details of how poorly Americans are served by their elites.

America has failed, because political elites represent only the powerful special interests that write the country’s laws in exchange for funding the political campaigns of “lawmakers.” To divert attention from their failures, American elites point fingers at external scapegoats. China, for example, is accused of manipulating its currency. As Unz says, the scapegoating is political theater designed for the ignorant and gullible.

America’s economists, or most of them, have so prostituted themselves that propaganda has become wisdom. Most Americans believe that if China would simply let the value of its currency rise more rapidly relative to the dollar, America’s economic woes would be at an end. It is beyond belief that any economist could think that Americans with stagnant and declining incomes would be made better off by a sharp rise in the prices of goods manufactured in China on which Americans are dependent, or that the US dollar’s role as reserve currency, the main source of American power, could survive such a manifestation of Chinese economic superiority.

Americans associate lawlessness with unaccountable governments and view China’s government as unaccountable. However, Unz points out that it is the Bush/Obama Regime that has declared itself to be unaccountable to both US and international law.

The demise of the War Powers Act and the Geneva Conventions, and the asserted power of the executive to imprison without trial or charges or to assassinate any American whom the executive thinks might be a “national-security threat” are indicative of a total police state masquerading as an accountable democracy. In America six-year old little girls who misbehave in school are handcuffed, jailed, and charged (http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/young-children-brutalized-by-police.html) with felonies. Not even Hitler and Stalin went this far.

Americans have lost control of the government, and governments that are not controlled by the people are not democracies. In America today, Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and the entire social safety net are threatened by the vociferous desire for war profits by armament plutocrats and by financial institutions determined that ordinary citizens bear the cost of the banksters incompetence and fraud.

Unz’s comparison of how the Chinese media and government handled the melamine or infant formula scandal and how the American media and government handled Merck’s Vioxx scandal is especially damning. It was China’s controlled media and unaccountable government that punished the infant formula wrongdoers, while America’s free press and accountable government allowed Merck to walk.

Unz’s conclusion is that it is in America, not China, where life is regarded as cheap.

(I still can't post links....this article is located at Counterpunch)

[annata]

^ good article. pretty much lays it on the line. Currency manipulation is but a smal part of the big picture.

a good ex. guess who's working with Cuba pumping oil across the Straights of Florida? the USA right?
I mean they ARE a natural trading power. ( Cuba/US)

But it's the Chinese (thru a Spanish subsidiary) that has the contracts. we'll just get the spills. idjits.

[keyser soze]

The beat goes on....

[roadmaster]

Actually, if we keep going the way we are going I see another country becoming a super power. Look at Canada, Asia has bought up many companies and land with cash by the way.

[BlackAsCoal]

I don't disagree that America is in a decline and that we likely won't except it. I am only stating that I think that China will not rise beyond a regional power.
China's methods of controlling population growth can only work in a nation that values community over liberty. The majority of Americans find Chinese methods to be barbaric.

Much of the world finds America to be barbaric .. thus the rise of the soft power that China projects and its aquisition of natural resources from countries that we attack and threaten.

Compare the records of innocent civilians mass-murdered by Chinese intervention to that of those murdered by America.

Who is the barbarian?

[Peter1469]

They're methods were necessary. All anyone has to do is look at their history of famine to see it was necessary. I also question your assertion that community and liberty are at odds.

I'd seen a similar report (your posted video) not long ago. They need to get busy and either bring the prices down on those places or build affordable housing and it sounds as though they know that. Similar things are happening in this country...we have about 1/4 of Americans officially in poverty now and many homeless all whilst homes sit empty.

I think you're wrong about China remaining regional...where we use hard power and threats of starvation etc. they are using soft power. We are the most hated country in the world at present due to our arrogance.

But China has no way to project power..... They can only be a superpower so long as nobody else exerts their own power.

And you are wrong about the concept of community versus individual liberty. That is the largest different between China and the West, particularly the US.

[Peter1469]

Much of the world finds America to be barbaric .. thus the rise of the soft power that China projects and its aquisition of natural resources from countries that we attack and threaten.

Compare the records of innocent civilians mass-murdered by Chinese intervention to that of those murdered by America.

Who is the barbarian?

For the sake of argument let's agree that you are correct.

Soft power does not make a global superpower. It may make a great partner for collaboration, trade, and development. But not a superpower.

[Peter1469]

Much of the world finds America to be barbaric .. thus the rise of the soft power that China projects and its aquisition of natural resources from countries that we attack and threaten.

Compare the records of innocent civilians mass-murdered by Chinese intervention to that of those murdered by America.

Who is the barbarian?

I am all for Ron Paul's idea of non-intervention. I image that within a few years the rest of the world would come to realize that they really didn't hate us so much.

[BlackAsCoal]

For the sake of argument let's agree that you are correct.

Soft power does not make a global superpower. It may make a great partner for collaboration, trade, and development. But not a superpower.

Sure it does. When you control much of the world's resources .. you are a superpower.

Having thousands of nuclear weapons that could blow the world up a hundred times over does not make you a superpower.

We've been kicked the Hell out of the small country of Vietnam, the tiny country of Iraq, and soon the stone age country of Afghanistan .. and China walks away with the resource contracts. What kind of superpower is that?

[BlackAsCoal]

I am all for Ron Paul's idea of non-intervention. I image that within a few years the rest of the world would come to realize that they really didn't hate us so much.

I too am for non-intervention, though not Ron Paul.

When we mass-murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people just because we could .. that kind of hate doesn't pass with a few years .. nor should it.

[annata]

Much of the world finds America to be barbaric .. thus the rise of the soft power that China projects and its aquisition of natural resources from countries that we attack and threaten.

Compare the records of innocent civilians mass-murdered by Chinese intervention to that of those murdered by America.

Who is the barbarian? One of the oldest terms for 'China' is Zhongguo which means 'Middle' 'Kingdom'
One explanation, sometimes disputed, is that the Chinese regarded China as the centre of the civilised world,
surrounded by barbarians

[Peter1469]

Sure it does. When you control much of the world's resources .. you are a superpower.

Having thousands of nuclear weapons that could blow the world up a hundred times over does not make you a superpower.

We've been kicked the Hell out of the small country of Vietnam, the tiny country of Iraq, and soon the stone age country of Afghanistan .. and China walks away with the resource contracts. What kind of superpower is that?

You are describing a great power, not a superpower. China could nuke US cities; China could not introduce ground forces into the US and sustain them for any length of time.

[Peter1469]

I too am for non-intervention, though not Ron Paul.

When we mass-murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people just because we could .. that kind of hate doesn't pass with a few years .. nor should it.

I don't agree with your use of the term mass murder.

I also don't agree that if we disengaged from the world that they would be happy about it.

[Captain Obvious]

Peter - Keyser and BAC are two whackjob liberals who have nothing but disgust, contempt and hatred for America, just keep that in mind.

It's been an interesting discussion so far, but this isn't a fact-finding mission for these two, it's an argument, one that they want to win.

[keyser soze]

Here comes the judge! Here comes the judge!! You're a hoot Obvious...I can see how you became Captain.

[Mainecoons]

I don't agree with your use of the term mass murder.

I also don't agree that if we disengaged from the world that they would be happy about it.

Probably not. They're quite happy to have us fight their battles and go broke doing it.

[keyser soze]

One of the oldest terms for 'China' is Zhongguo which means 'Middle' 'Kingdom'
One explanation, sometimes disputed, is that the Chinese regarded China as the centre of the civilised world,
surrounded by barbarians


:rofl: Thanks for that slice of history...I'd guess that most of us knew that westerners were considered barbarians....and we were....in some ways we still are. I think BAC's response to the charge of barbarianism leveled against the chinese one child policy was excellent personally.

[BlackAsCoal]

You are describing a great power, not a superpower. China could nuke US cities; China could not introduce ground forces into the US and sustain them for any length of time.

Why would they need to send ground forces here? They have no intention of occupying the US. That's a western/cowboy thing that has proven time and time again that it does not work.

That is not the definition of a superpower.

[BlackAsCoal]

Peter - Keyser and BAC are two whackjob liberals who have nothing but disgust, contempt and hatred for America, just keep that in mind.

It's been an interesting discussion so far, but this isn't a fact-finding mission for these two, it's an argument, one that they want to win.

What is obvious captain is that you don't exhbit much intelligence. You spend all your time in gossip and child-like rants .. zero time in actually critical thinking.

If you care to demonstrate your intellectual prowess rathet than your gross insecurities .. that would be a welcome change.

[BlackAsCoal]

I don't agree with your use of the term mass murder.

I also don't agree that if we disengaged from the world that they would be happy about it.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the term or not brother. That is EXACTLY what we did. We mass-murdered countless innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, terrorism, WMD, or Saddam's regime. AND, we were stupid enough to be lured into it by the Iranians who now have influence throughout Iraq that they never had before.

More importantly, we mass-murdered them for profit.

It doesn't matter if you don't like the image.

AND, we are currently droning planet earth and preparing for the next inevitable war .. that we will create.

If you don't see the sway the MIC holds over this government .. I can't help you.

[Captain Obvious]

What is obvious captain is that you don't exhbit much intelligence. You spend all your time in gossip and child-like rants .. zero time in actually critical thinking.

If you care to demonstrate your intellectual prowess rathet than your gross insecurities .. that would be a welcome change.

I would love to. Still waiting for the opportunity.

[Peter1469]

Probably not. They're quite happy to have us fight their battles and go broke doing it.

Absolutely.

[Peter1469]

:rofl: Thanks for that slice of history...I'd guess that most of us knew that westerners were considered barbarians....and we were....in some ways we still are. I think BAC's response to the charge of barbarianism leveled against the chinese one child policy was excellent personally.

And anyone who considers the Chinese policy, that includes infanticide, to be a rational option is likely sick enough for serious medication and doctor supervision.

[Peter1469]

Why would they need to send ground forces here? They have no intention of occupying the US. That's a western/cowboy thing that has proven time and time again that it does not work.

That is not the definition of a superpower.

Provide your definition of superpower. I am using the one that the world has since 1945.

I suspect that your new one = great power and in the great power system that existed before WWI.

[Peter1469]

It doesn't matter if you agree with the term or not brother. That is EXACTLY what we did. We mass-murdered countless innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, terrorism, WMD, or Saddam's regime. AND, we were stupid enough to be lured into it by the Iranians who now have influence throughout Iraq that they never had before.

More importantly, we mass-murdered them for profit.

It doesn't matter if you don't like the image.

AND, we are currently droning planet earth and preparing for the next inevitable war .. that we will create.

If you don't see the sway the MIC holds over this government .. I can't help you.

I agree with almost everything that you are saying.

The only thing I disagree with is the word murder. Sovereigns have rights under international law, that when exercised, cause death.

But I agree. I would like to dismantle the MIC; I would like to cut defense spending so that we have a Department of Defense and not a Department of Offense. I think the key is eliminating our need for oil. If we pushed alcohol fuels we could make the Middle East irrelevant in 10-20 years. Then Arabs could kill themselves without having to have us do it for them.

http://energyvictory.net/

[keyser soze]

And anyone who considers the Chinese policy, that includes infanticide, to be a rational option is likely sick enough for serious medication and doctor supervision.

You must realize that people have been practicing birth control, including abortion and infanticide (too very different things) for as long as there have been people. Surely you do...you realize that right? You want to moralize about it fine, do it in church....the rest of us like birth control and family planning. China had an out of control population problem and they solved it...it wasn't easy but given the alternative I think they did fine and having that point of view doesn't make me sick anymore than holding your point of view makes you sick.

[RollingWave]

On a general level...

1 child policy : it's controversial, espeically when you consider that Taiwan / South Korea's (which is essentially the two country who's model of rise China is mimicing most closely to so far) population growth since 1949 have NOT been higher than China's . And it is likely to have a serious reprucussion down the road. it should be noted that it's essentially a terrible policy to try and reverse a previous terrible policy... aka Mao's ridiculas promotion of excessive child births in the 50s / 60s while China as still poor as hell. China had obviously never lacked population to begin with... even at their worst moments they still had something like 400 million people in the early 20th C.

On power projection : it's something still down the road for them, but on a theoretical level they're not as limited naturally speaking as Russia (aka they don't have to fight just to get a freaking warm water port). while they obviously don't have the same advantage as the USA facing two Ocean with no islands to lock them in and natural harbors comming in bushels. it seems more than theoretically possible that if they can break the first island chain they'll be able to at least project power to some degree, though due to relative geographical restraint (for example their fleet reaching Europe would be a real headache) it is true that the difficulty for them in doing so would be inherently larger. the projecting beyond Asia and maybe Africa would be a serious problem. (of coruse, it should also be note that the US's power to project onto China also lies inherently in their alliance / control of Japan / Korea, which can not be taken or as a given in the longer run.)


China's housing bubble: it mostly exist only in a few costal city region, one of the other issue involved is that China's rather high restriction on capital investment as well. which leaves little option for most domestic investers other than housing to invest in. which distorts the situation further. though the brighter side is that it has not indebted a portion of the population or anything.. so collatoral effect is likely to be less serious than the sub-prime fiasco.

China's export economy: it's already shifting anyway, and as I pointed out, they're mostly mimicing Taiwan/ Korea's economic developement system, neither of those country really had a huge deal of trouble making that transformation, which is obviously always a gradual process, China will likely have a harder time if only due to scale. on the other had that is a double edge sword, it also means they potentially have a self sustaining consumer economy where as those other two are too small to be a huge world player in that regard.

The real question is rather China's political transformation will be relatively smooth or not, Taiwan's was, Korea's was iffier but nothing catastrophic either (there were some military coups but not on a disastorous scale) . would China's be like that? or could they seriously implode into civil war? both outcomes are possible to some extend at least...

[Peter1469]

You must realize that people have been practicing birth control, including abortion and infanticide (too very different things) for as long as there have been people. Surely you do...you realize that right? You want to moralize about it fine, do it in church....the rest of us like birth control and family planning. China had an out of control population problem and they solved it...it wasn't easy but given the alternative I think they did fine and having that point of view doesn't make me sick anymore than holding your point of view makes you sick.

I agree that a society that values community over individual liberty can come to the conclusion that you so elegantly presented. Bravo, you are a monster, like Ted Bundy.

Our society, given to us by Smith, Locke, Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc- no infanticide would be acceptable. (And I am not talking about abortion, although many likely wish that I was).

[Peter1469]

On a general level...

1 child policy : it's controversial, espeically when you consider that Taiwan / South Korea's (which is essentially the two country who's model of rise China is mimicing most closely to so far) population growth since 1949 have NOT been higher than China's . And it is likely to have a serious reprucussion down the road. it should be noted that it's essentially a terrible policy to try and reverse a previous terrible policy... aka Mao's ridiculas promotion of excessive child births in the 50s / 60s while China as still poor as hell. China had obviously never lacked population to begin with... even at their worst moments they still had something like 400 million people in the early 20th C.

On power projection : it's something still down the road for them, but on a theoretical level they're not as limited naturally speaking as Russia (aka they don't have to fight just to get a freaking warm water port). while they obviously don't have the same advantage as the USA facing two Ocean with no islands to lock them in and natural harbors comming in bushels. it seems more than theoretically possible that if they can break the first island chain they'll be able to at least project power to some degree, though due to relative geographical restraint (for example their fleet reaching Europe would be a real headache) it is true that the difficulty for them in doing so would be inherently larger. the projecting beyond Asia and maybe Africa would be a serious problem. (of coruse, it should also be note that the US's power to project onto China also lies inherently in their alliance / control of Japan / Korea, which can not be taken or as a given in the longer run.)


China's housing bubble: it mostly exist only in a few costal city region, one of the other issue involved is that China's rather high restriction on capital investment as well. which leaves little option for most domestic investers other than housing to invest in. which distorts the situation further. though the brighter side is that it has not indebted a portion of the population or anything.. so collatoral effect is likely to be less serious than the sub-prime fiasco.

China's export economy: it's already shifting anyway, and as I pointed out, they're mostly mimicing Taiwan/ Korea's economic developement system, neither of those country really had a huge deal of trouble making that transformation, which is obviously always a gradual process, China will likely have a harder time if only due to scale. on the other had that is a double edge sword, it also means they potentially have a self sustaining consumer economy where as those other two are too small to be a huge world player in that regard.

The real question is rather China's political transformation will be relatively smooth or not, Taiwan's was, Korea's was iffier but nothing catastrophic either (there were some military coups but not on a disastorous scale) . would China's be like that? or could they seriously implode into civil war? both outcomes are possible to some extend at least...

On China and power projection.

If China had the ability to put 20 divisions on Taiwan (I doubt that do), how would they sustain that force? They don't have the capacity for that.

And Taiwan is next door.

China is no world power. Sure if another nation invades China they will likely lose. China is a land power. That is all.

[keyser soze]

I agree that a society that values community over individual liberty can come to the conclusion that you so elegantly presented. Bravo, you are a monster, like Ted Bundy.

Our society, given to us by Smith, Locke, Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc- no infanticide would be acceptable. (And I am not talking about abortion, although many likely wish that I was).

I seriously doubt that any woman would choose to have more children than she could care for or feed. In my view China's one child policy worked well. I still don't see how community and freedom are self exclusionary.

I seriously doubt that they had more than herbs and midwifery to use for birth control. You have no idea what a woman goes through who has no choice but to bear child after child. I find your lack of understanding or concern beyond your so called 'morals' to be less than honorable. Confounding and patriarchal...yes...authoritarian....yes....yet you speak of liberty.

Why does being a world power equal the ability to be aggressive? I think there is much more to power than that and your belief is an expression of American Empire...oh how exceptional we are. I think you're overlooking many things.

[Captain Obvious]

I

I seriously doubt that any woman would choose to have more children than she could care for or feed.

Not in this fucking society, Einstein.

Don't stutter.

[keyser soze]

Not in this fucking society, Einstein.

Don't stutter.
Get a brain...and why would any woman in any society? Given a choice women choose.

[RollingWave]

On China and power projection.

If China had the ability to put 20 divisions on Taiwan (I doubt that do), how would they sustain that force? They don't have the capacity for that.

And Taiwan is next door.

China is no world power. Sure if another nation invades China they will likely lose. China is a land power. That is all.

Ahh.. but that is "Now" we are talking about potentials aren't we not? you are correct that at this point they would have serious problem even invading Taiwan . and it would be foolish for them to try now. but 30-50 years (or even 80-100) years down the road? assuming no major economic disastor happen they will almost surely be the world's largest economy if only based on population size alone...

[Peter1469]

I

I seriously doubt that any woman would choose to have more children than she could care for or feed. In my view China's one child policy worked well. I still don't see how community and freedom are self exclusionary.

I seriously doubt that they had more than herbs and midwifery to use for birth control. You have no idea what a woman goes through who has no choice but to bear child after child. I find your lack of understanding or concern beyond your so called 'morals' to be less than honorable. Confounding and patriarchal...yes...authoritarian....yes....yet you speak of liberty.


You do understand that in China, if a couple wants a second child and gets caught having it, that child can be killed upon birth.

We are not talking about women forced into giving birth. We are talking about infanticide. And that pretty much destroy's your last nonsensical statement. I can only imagine that it was a lame attempt at constructing a straw man.

[Captain Obvious]

Get a brain...and why would any woman in any society? Given a choice women choose.

Fail.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUW2vCPX7w

[Peter1469]

Ahh.. but that is "Now" we are talking about potentials aren't we not? you are correct that at this point they would have serious problem even invading Taiwan . and it would be foolish for them to try now. but 30-50 years (or even 80-100) years down the road? assuming no major economic disastor happen they will almost surely be the world's largest economy if only based on population size alone...

Maybe not. I don't think that China will successfully transform from an export economy to a consumer economy- a condition precedent to advancing as you propose. I certainly could be wrong. I just don't see any reason to think that now.

[keyser soze]

Yes I know they enforce the one child policy yet there are exceptions to the rule...I know that. It's harsh I'm aware of that...it's difficult but in their place with their history it still makes sense to me. I don't condemn them in other words.

My last statement stands. You have shown quite an aptitude for constructing your own straw men.

[Peter1469]

Get a brain...and why would any woman in any society? Given a choice women choose.

Because they value human life?

If choice is your talking point, why doesn't it apply to not spreading your legs wide open?

[Peter1469]

Yes I know they enforce the one child policy yet there are exceptions to the rule...I know that. It's harsh I'm aware of that...it's difficult but in their place with their history it still makes sense to me. I don't condemn them in other words.

My last statement stands. You have shown quite an aptitude for constructing your own straw men.

Show me my straw men. I typically know when I make them.

So you feel bad about Chinese babies having their heads bashed in, but you feel that the policy works.

I have to go throw up.

[keyser soze]

Fail.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUW2vCPX7w

What's your point? That some people are stupid? I thought that was a given...it's been shown in third world countries that sex education and availability of birth control are improving women's lives and the lives of their children. This country is full of idiots having ridiculous numbers of offspring...their choice...see the word choice? That's what it means, choice.

[Peter1469]

Fail.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUW2vCPX7w

Deport them.

[Captain Obvious]

Deport them.

I'd say deport her.

All children are innocent.

[Peter1469]

What's your point? That some people are stupid? I thought that was a given...it's been shown in third world countries that sex education and availability of birth control are improving women's lives and the lives of their children. This country is full of idiots having ridiculous numbers of offspring...their choice...see the word choice? That's what it means, choice.


Well we could abort her 15 kids, that might make it easier for her to get by.

[Captain Obvious]

What's your point? That some people are stupid? I thought that was a given...it's been shown in third world countries that sex education and availability of birth control are improving women's lives and the lives of their children. This country is full of idiots having ridiculous numbers of offspring...their choice...see the word choice? That's what it means, choice.

You made the statement, I shot it down.

Go back and re-read your statements that caused this series of replies.

[Captain Obvious]

Well we could abort her 15 kids, that might make it easier for her to get by.

I have a hunch her plan was for those kids to be her meal ticket.

[keyser soze]

Because they value human life?

If choice is your talking point, why doesn't it apply to not spreading your legs wide open?

Have you ever heard of family planning? That's what Planned Parenthood does...it's not just for single women. Are you one of the quiverfull people? What is it that you don't seem to accept about this subject? You don't want people to have sex? Is that it? Are you Opus Dei or just Calvinist?

[keyser soze]

I have a hunch her plan was for those kids to be her meal ticket.
Which has no place in this discussion...

[Peter1469]

Have you ever heard of family planning? That's what Planned Parenthood does...it's not just for single women. Are you one of the quiverfull people? What is it that you don't seem to accept about this subject? You don't want people to have sex? Is that it? Are you Opus Dei or just Calvinist?

Are we going to get into my sex life now? That is a hot topic. PM me if you like. Maybe we could work something out. :smiley:


Are you Opus Dei or just Calvinist? Neither. I am a pagan heathen. I just don't like murdering kids.

[annata]

What's your point? That some people are stupid? I thought that was a given...it's been shown in third world countries that sex education and availability of birth control are improving women's lives and the lives of their children. This country is full of idiots having ridiculous numbers of offspring...their choice...see the word choice? That's what it means, choice.
China had no choice, not for the good of the empire. The Communists are the dynastic rulers now - the peasents, and villigers will back anyone that can fed and house them.

I saw a housing townhouse structure in the middle of western china new construction with solar power roof, for hot water, and some electric.

These are prolly the first time central china villiages had ever had a middle class type existence. No frills, but a roof and power.

The Chinese had to have a one child policy, else their population would have gone into the 3 billions, and more.
It's a typical Chinese idea, Confusicism, the individual submits to society's greater good, but the gains are shared, The first socialist "Dynasty"

[RollingWave]

Maybe not. I don't think that China will successfully transform from an export economy to a consumer economy- a condition precedent to advancing as you propose. I certainly could be wrong. I just don't see any reason to think that now.

I don't see why not, they're moving towards that direction already, it's obviously not going to be a overnight process, but a very large portion of their new busniess are geared towards their own domestic markets, and one could easily point out the example that China is already one of the worlds' largest spender in terms of tourist.

More over, China's large base inherently give them a considerable advantage there, and their wealth is certainly relatievly better spread than India's for example. the rate of them acquring TVs and other home commodity is quite amazing. and due to their start at a really low base point the potential for growth there is immense.

[keyser soze]

China had no choice, not for the good of the empire. The Communists are the dynastic rulers now - the peasents, and villigers will back anyone that can fed and house them.

I saw a housing townhouse structure in the middle of western china new construction with solar power roof, for hot water, and some electric.

These are prolly the first time central china villiages had ever had a middle class type existence. No frills, but a roof and power.

The Chinese had to have a one child policy, else their population would have gone into the 3 billions, and more.
It's a typical Chinese idea, Confusicism, the individual submits to society's greater good, but the gains are shared, The first socialist "Dynasty"
I agree...it was good policy for them. They set about to do something difficult but necessary and they accomplished their goal. Kudos to them. I think there are a lot of things they're doing right...I wish we could hold our corporate criminals and crooked politicians accountable like they do. Our government is owned by the very people that are robbing us.

[keyser soze]

Are we going to get into my sex life now? That is a hot topic. PM me if you like. Maybe we could work something out. :smiley:

Neither. I am a pagan heathen. I just don't like murdering kids.
They were questions not a show of interest....no one is talking about murdering kids but you'll never see that.

[Peter1469]

They were questions not a show of interest....no one is talking about murdering kids but you'll never see that.

The Chinese government is talking about it.

[Mister D]

Are we going to get into my sex life now? That is a hot topic. PM me if you like. Maybe we could work something out. :smiley:

Neither. I am a pagan heathen. I just don't like murdering kids.

Why is it that when one suggests that human beings should assume at least a modicum of responsibility for their actions they are accused of being prudes?

[keyser soze]

Because while you want responsibility you won't provide the means in regard to healthcare, sex education and birth control. You want to impose your belief that there is a simple answer...and there isn't.

[Mister D]

Because while you want responsibility you won't provide the means in regard to healthcare, sex education and birth control. You want to impose your belief that there is a simple answer...and there isn't.

Women have access to all of those things and no one is imposing anything on you . Get a grip, woman.

[Peter1469]

Because while you want responsibility you won't provide the means in regard to healthcare, sex education and birth control. You want to impose your belief that there is a simple answer...and there isn't.

It isn't really a responsibility anymore if you get it for free.