why should we care if china become a world power?

[Benzoate]

Who cares if china a super power? If t the united states focuses more on defending it national borders instead placing its armed forces in other countries, then we should not worry about another nation invading and taken over our country. Whats wrong with just being a 2nd rate world power? Canada is not a superpower and no other country has tried to invade it; in addition , I believe their education system for math and science is rated in the top ten among nations in the world along with Japan. I would like to hear your thoughts.

[russ_watters]

Canada is a member of NATO and they know if anyone messes with them, we'll jump to their aid. No western country is worried about being invaded and taken over. That just isn't the way the world works anymore.

The poblem with China being a superpower is similar to the problem with North Korea, for example, being a superpower (a more extreme example). If their social/political development does not advance far enough for them to be responsible with their power, they become a threat. And I don't just mean a military one. And I don't just mean an external threat. While their development is helping their people somewhat, their development is also taking place at the expense of their people and their environment.

[Benzoate]

There I think lies the problem. I don't think its a good idea for other countries to rely on one country to defend them if another country decides to take over. They should be developing there own defenses . What if we stop being friends with Canada? Then they would not be able to defend themselves if china decided they wanted to conquer Canada? I think the reasons why the united states may have potential enemies is because of our foreign policy. Our only purpose should be when communicating with other nations would be to trade with other nations, Not fight diseases plagueing nations or establishing democracies in other nations.

[Economist]

While their development is helping their people somewhat, their development is also taking place at the expense of their people and their environment.

What do you mean here? I think to state that their development is "helping their people somewhat" is a gross underestimate. Also, what do you mean "at the expense of their people?" I have heard that China's development has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, which to be sure is no small feat. How has hundreds of millions of people raising out of poverty hurt the others? I'm pretty sure that the others have not gotten poorer because some of their neighbors have become richer. Now, with the environmental issue I think you have a point, because their development has had some negative effects on the environment. However, there is definitely a trade-off to be made because it is unlikely that they would have economic growth anywhere near what they have under much stricter environmental regulation. So in some sense we're forced to ask, is their negative effect on the environment "worth" it considering that so many human beings have been lifted out of grinding poverty? Now, this is a value judgement so you could go either way. I tend to believe that it is/was definitely worth it, because many people have been helped. Furthermore, as nations develop and escape poverty, they are in a much better position to innovate and develop the technologies and equipment which will reduce pollution. I really can't blame impoverished nations when their people want to raise out of poverty, even if it means that they will be increasing their "carbon footprint." Sometimes I think it's hypocritical when people from industrialized nations criticize development on environmental grounds.

In regards to the OP, I've noticed that sometimes people tend to worry about China becoming an Economic Superpower. I know this is not exactly what you were talking about, but I would like to discuss it briefly. Often times people tend to worry about China's economic progress because they think it will decrease our standard of living. This idea stems from a common economic fallacy that there is a "fixed-pie" to be divided up among all people. This fallacy implies that the world is a zero-sum game, and that one person's gain comes at another person's expense. In reality nothing could be further from the truth, as people prosper by creating wealth.

As P.J. O'Rourke states when summarizing Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations."
Smith's logical demonstration of how productivity is increased through self-interest, division of labor, and trade disproved the thesis (still dearly held by leftists and everyone's little brother) that bettering the condition of one person necessarily worsens the condition of another. Wealth is not a pizza. If I have too many slices, you don't have to eat the Domino's box.

By proving that there was no fixed amount of wealth in a nation, Smith also proved that a nation cannot be said to have a certain horde of treasure. Wealth must be measured by the volume of trades in goods and services — what goes on in the castle's kitchens and stables, not what's locked in strongboxes in the castle's tower. Smith specifies this measurement in the first sentence of his introduction to The Wealth of Nations: "The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes." Smith thereby, in a stroke, created the concept of gross domestic product. Without GDP modern economists would be left with nothing much to say, standing around mute in ugly neckties, waiting for MSNBC to ask them to be silent on the air.

If wealth is all ebb and flow, then so is its measure, money. Money has no intrinsic value. Any baby who's eaten a nickel could tell you so. And those of us old enough to have heard about the Weimar Republic and to have lived through the Carter administration are not pained by the information. But eighteenth-century money was still mostly made of precious metals. Smith's observations on money must have been slightly disheartening to his readers, although they had the example of bling-deluged but impoverished Spain to confirm what he said. Gold is, well, worth its weight in gold, certainly, but not so certainly worth anything else. It was almost as though Smith, having proved that we can all have more money, then proved that money doesn't buy happiness. And it doesn't. It rents it.


My point is that China's economic progress is great for the people of China, and it does not harm those of us who do not live in China (in fact, China's economic progress is probably good for most of us).

[DrClapeyron]

Canada is a member of the British Empire and is bordered by the US and there have been at least a few occassions within 100 years when someone has tried to invade Canada. But I understand your argument.

Protecting the border is very a broad scoped definition of national defense because the border is a separation between neighboring states not an end to national interests. If a country has business interests across an ocean the country has the right to defend its interests there. The days of empires waging war against nations to collect tribute are long gone, today's economic powers wage war as a last resort to protect economic activity.

[Benzoate]

Canada is a member of the British Empire th and is bordered by the US and there have been at least a few occassions within 100 years when someone has tried to invade Canada. But I understand your argument.

Protecting the border is very a broad scoped definition of national defense because the border is a separation between neighboring states not an end to national interests. If a country has business interests across an ocean the country has the right to defend its interests there. The days of empires waging war against nations to collect tribute are long gone, today's economic powers wage war as a last resort to protect economic activity.

Are you going to say protecting our economic interests means waging war against another country ang killing hundreds of people simply to gain control of certain capital , then thats not in line with our basic fundamental civil liberties that every person is born with. There are more countries to trade who are willing to share there resources with us.

[DrClapeyron]

Here in the US when a law is broken a criminal is caught he is placed on trial convicted and then given punishment. This applies equally to international theory. The case for NATO has been made.

[CaptainQuasar]

No western country is worried about being invaded and taken over. That just isn't the way the world works anymore.The days of empires waging war against nations to collect tribute are long gone,

Unless you're an Iraqi. :wink: Though I do agree that NATO is responsible for some of the safety of Canada, as would be things like the British Commonwealth. Remember, Canadians invaded the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812) at one point and burned Washington to the ground.

I have to agree with Economist that any downsides to economic development in China are insignificant next to the benefits, considering how many tens or hundreds of millions of people there died from poverty, famine, and wars that were to some degree a consequence of economic instability during the last century.

The way I think China will be a ‘threat’ is economically and culturally rather than militarily, as the economic mass and inertia of China make it more and more dominant in the world (due to its per capita GDP catching up with the first world) and the U.S. continues to wane in power and importance, thank you Mr. Bush for pushing us off the cliff - sort of the way that the Japanese own much of Hawaii and many street signs there are now in Japanese. The same thing will probably happen with India and Brazil. But it's only a ‘threat’ in that Americans will have to experience international relations the same way everyone else does.⚛

[BadDog]

What if we stop being friends with Canada? Then they would not be able to defend themselves if china decided they wanted to conquer Canada? .
A good friendship with Canada or not, would the US sit back and watch China take over our northern border, I think not and Canada knows it .
But maybe the US should allow it, just think of all the cheap labor and new language the US could bring in from it’s north to make it an even greater country .

[CaptainQuasar]

A good friendship with Canada or not, would the US sit back and watch China take over our northern border, I think not and Canada knows it .

Uh, anyone been to the Vancouver area lately? It's just a liiiitlebit Chinese. Maybe we'll have to send the Arizona Guard (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Militi_71/4563_71.htm) up there to deal with things.⚛

[thinkies]

Greed for power never ceased in any century, nor it will ever in the future.

[thinkies]

There I think lies the problem. I don't think its a good idea for other countries to rely on one country to defend them if another country decides to take over. They should be developing there own defenses . What if we stop being friends with Canada? Then they would not be able to defend themselves if china decided they wanted to conquer Canada? I think the reasons why the united states may have potential enemies is because of our foreign policy. Our only purpose should be when communicating with other nations would be to trade with other nations, Not fight diseases plagueing nations or establishing democracies in other nations.

China would never want to conquer Canada...=.=.There's something called international relationship and I beleive we are not that bad regarding political and business affair with China. ;)

[drankin]

If China invaded Canada (militarily, immigration is a diff story), the US would see that as a strategic threat to the US. It would threaten our pipeline from Alaska and transit to and from Alaska. We have an immense military presence in Alaska (I grew up next to several bases up there). It's not going to happen. I think it's kind of silly to even consider it.

[thinkies]

If China invaded Canada (militarily, immigration is a diff story), the US would see that as a strategic threat to the US. It would threaten our pipeline from Alaska and transit to and from Alaska. We have an immense military presence in Alaska (I grew up next to several bases up there). It's not going to happen. I think it's kind of silly to even consider it.

Good point...

[falc39]

One possible problem is the change to the standard of living. China's standard of living for its citizens will go way up. Chances are that will probably mean ours will go down, not really sure by how much though. But the thing is, disregarding China, we are shooting ourselves in the foot economically speaking anyway.

[CaptainQuasar]

If China invaded Canada (militarily, immigration is a diff story), the US would see that as a strategic threat to the US. It would threaten our pipeline from Alaska and transit to and from Alaska. We have an immense military presence in Alaska (I grew up next to several bases up there). It's not going to happen.

Yes, we would respond the way Iran would have responded to an invasion of Iraq, if it had possessed nuclear weapons. Which is why we don't want Iran to gain that deterrent - we want other countries tiptoeing around us, not the other way around.

China will probably avoid direct military confrontation with any state that possesses nuclear weapons.⚛

[ShawnD]

Who cares if china a super power?

China does not have the checks and balances other nations have. There is no media to mock the leader. There are no people to protest. There isn't even political opposition because they only have 1 party. With a political system that doesn't allow disagreement, having some military and money to backup stupid ideas is very dangerous.

[Hurkyl]

One possible problem is the change to the standard of living. China's standard of living for its citizens will go way up. Chances are that will probably mean ours will go down
Why?

[ShawnD]

Why?

People who don't understand economics think money is zero sum.

[CaptainQuasar]

With a political system that doesn't allow disagreement, having some military and money to backup stupid ideas is very dangerous.

God bless the USA, where military-and-money-backed stupid ideas can at least be disagreed with at least once every four years! :redface:⚛

[gravenewworld]

China will never become a superpower until it does something about the enormous amounts of poverty and pollution rampant in its country. Has anyone here ever even been to China? I have been and I don't think I have seen such horrendous and deplorable living conditions for so many people before. The pollution in China is also unbelievable. Millions of Chinese don't have access to clean water and more and more Chinese land is becoming arid from over farming and pollution. China faces the risk of having a severe famine and hundred of thousands of deaths from undrinkable water. This could lead to a destabilization of the government if enough Chinese residents start to revolt against all of the corrupt local and federal government leaders in China that get paid kickbacks to allow industrial factories to continue to dump massive amounts of toxic waste in the waterways and on land near farmers.

[ShawnD]

God bless the USA, where military-and-money-backed stupid ideas can at least be disagreed with at least once every four years! :redface:⚛
Having the dictator change every 4 years is better than never changing it :wink:

[falc39]

Why?

China right now is providing for our standard of living. This could soon change if our economy keeps spiraling down. If they are freed from the burden, then they can actually start producing for themselves, and their standards of living will rise accordingly. As their savings finance increased capital investment, rather than being squandered on American consumption, their future standards of living will rise much faster as well.

Money itself is not sum zero, but goods are. The central banks can print money however they like, but they can't make goods appear from thin air. For example, if one country is using 50% of the world's current oil supply, then that means the rest of the world has to share the other 50%. China's increased purchasing power from their booming economy will allow them to get more of the share of the worlds exported goods while we will eventually have to come to terms with our debt. Not rocket science.

I'm not saying that America will be a third-world country or anything, but do expect a shift in the standard of living.

[CaptainQuasar]

China will never become a superpower until it does something about the enormous amounts of poverty and pollution rampant in its country.

The Soviet Union had tons of poverty and pollution and they were a superpower no prob. China has nukes and their own space program already, dude. Soon they may have their own GPS satellite network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMPASS_navigation_system) (which only the U.S. and the Russian Federation / ex-Soviets have right now) and will probably be on the moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMPASS_navigation_system). And they're just getting started.⚛

[CaptainQuasar]

China's standard of living for its citizens will go way up. Chances are that will probably mean ours will go down, not really sure by how much though.Why?

China will compete with us for all of the scarce and limited resources in the world such as petroleum, timber, and steel. Consequently the prices of those resources will go up.

China is very efficient and successful at producing a wide variety of consumer and industrial products and is a major source globally for those products. As their standard of living increases the average wage in terms of real $ / yuan will increase and as a result Chinese products will become more expensive. Unless another location that can produce said products with lower wages is found, the prices of those products in the U.S. will rise.

As China's industrial and business acumen increases U.S. businesses that compete globally may face incursions from Chinese companies into their markets, reducing revenue and profits for U.S. businesses.⚛

[BobG]

What do you mean here? I think to state that their development is "helping their people somewhat" is a gross underestimate. Also, what do you mean "at the expense of their people?" I have heard that China's development has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, which to be sure is no small feat. How has hundreds of millions of people raising out of poverty hurt the others? I'm pretty sure that the others have not gotten poorer because some of their neighbors have become richer. Now, with the environmental issue I think you have a point, because their development has had some negative effects on the environment. However, there is definitely a trade-off to be made because it is unlikely that they would have economic growth anywhere near what they have under much stricter environmental regulation. So in some sense we're forced to ask, is their negative effect on the environment "worth" it considering that so many human beings have been lifted out of grinding poverty? Now, this is a value judgement so you could go either way. I tend to believe that it is/was definitely worth it, because many people have been helped. Furthermore, as nations develop and escape poverty, they are in a much better position to innovate and develop the technologies and equipment which will reduce pollution. I really can't blame impoverished nations when their people want to raise out of poverty, even if it means that they will be increasing their "carbon footprint." Sometimes I think it's hypocritical when people from industrialized nations criticize development on environmental grounds.

In regards to the OP, I've noticed that sometimes people tend to worry about China becoming an Economic Superpower. I know this is not exactly what you were talking about, but I would like to discuss it briefly. Often times people tend to worry about China's economic progress because they think it will decrease our standard of living. This idea stems from a common economic fallacy that there is a "fixed-pie" to be divided up among all people. This fallacy implies that the world is a zero-sum game, and that one person's gain comes at another person's expense. In reality nothing could be further from the truth, as people prosper by creating wealth.

As P.J. O'Rourke states when summarizing Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations."


My point is that China's economic progress is great for the people of China, and it does not harm those of us who do not live in China (in fact, China's economic progress is probably good for most of us).

World wealth may not be a zero sum game, but it's not an infinite sum game either.

The trade off between pollution and raising the standard of living for people in China is definitely worth it for China. It doesn't help the average person in the US.

We're already seeing the effects of jobs moving overseas. That job movement does wonders for the less rich nations of the world, and it doesn't seem to hurt our economy overall. It does have a negative effect on the standard of living of a large segment of the US population, ranging from outright loss of jobs to slower raising wages (relative to inflation). Raising the wealth of other nations also raises the competition for resources, including raising the price of fuel. The increase in the number of factories and use of energy also increases the world's pollution levels.

I don't think the world could currently support every nation consuming at the same rate as the US (#1 in per capita consumption) or polluting at the same rate as the US (#3 in pollution per capita). Considering the disparity of wealth between China and the US, you could probably get away with saying it would be more fair for the US to suffer a slower increase in their quality of life for a while and that the US should do more to reduce their pollution levels than a country like China that's trying to raise their population from a low standard of living (especially if you said that somewhere besides inside the US). However, I don't think many in the US consider raising the standard of living for the rest of the world to be worth having their own standard of living stagnate.

http://atlas.aaas.org/index.php?part=2&sec=natres

[CaptainQuasar]

However, I don't think many in the US consider raising the standard of living for the rest of the world to be worth having their own standard of living stagnate.

Ah... those must be the people who make sure they never buy products made in China. :wink:

[Economist]

One possible problem is the change to the standard of living. China's standard of living for its citizens will go way up. Chances are that will probably mean ours will go down, not really sure by how much though. But the thing is, disregarding China, we are shooting ourselves in the foot economically speaking anyway.

I disagree, and I think your claims are not backed by much of the economic evidence.


The trade off between pollution and raising the standard of living for people in China is definitely worth it for China. It doesn't help the average person in the US.

Right, but I was just pointing out the benefit of their economic progress and the fact that so many people have been lifted out of poverty. Furthermore, it's easy for someone in the US to say that they don't like this tradeoff, precisely because it is not helping their standard of living as much as those who live in China.

It probably does help the average person in the US if China becomes more developed. Don't forget that the more developed countries there are, the more innovation and advancements in technology that take place which helps everyone on the planet.

We're already seeing the effects of jobs moving overseas. That job movement does wonders for the less rich nations of the world, and it doesn't seem to hurt our economy overall. It does have a negative effect on the standard of living of a large segment of the US population, ranging from outright loss of jobs to slower raising wages (relative to inflation). Raising the wealth of other nations also raises the competition for resources, including raising the price of fuel. The increase in the number of factories and use of energy also increases the world's pollution levels.

The effects of jobs moving overseas is completely overblown. First of all, people often use the statistics in misleading ways, such as pointing out the number of jobs that have been "lost" without reporting on the number of jobs that have been "created." Or someone will state that the number of manufacturing jobs in the US has decreased without pointing out that even China has seen decreases in the total number of manufacturing jobs. Second, people fail to mention how jobs moving overseas benefits us, and instead chose to only discuss the dark aspects. People often fail to mention how our high standard of living largely comes from the fact that we have relatively free-trade and are therefore allowed to buy cheaper goods and services while utilizing someone else's comparative advantage. For example, many of the people laid off because of free-trade would be very poor if they were not allowed to buy so many goods and services from abroad. This is why practicing mercantilism is not believed to be a good idea by economists. Not to mention, often these people had a job in the first place precisely because of free-trade. In other words, if they weren't exporting goods or services in the first place many of them would not have been hired.

Or as this blog article put it: http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/01/winners-and-los.html


Don argues in the book and in the podcast that to point to an American steel worker put out of work by imports of Brazilian steel and say that he is "harmed by trade" is to misunderstand the nature of trade and its winners and losers. He says it's like saying that a man whose wife leaves him for another man is harmed by love. After all, the man married because of love. The man is the product of his parents who were touched by love. So it is with the steel worker. His steel job exists because of trade. His whole life is supported by trade of various kinds. So in what sense is he "harmed by trade?"

It's a profound point. It forces you to see just how trade and specialization and the division of labor create the incredible lives we lead, lives of wealth and health unimagined by previous generations.


I don't think the world could currently support every nation consuming at the same rate as the US (#1 in per capita consumption) or polluting at the same rate as the US (#3 in pollution per capita).

You might be wrong about this. People often make this argument about there not being enough resources to go around.

Resources (even natural) are not fixed. For example, people have often pointed out that using paper uses trees. However, the assumption that there's not enough trees to go around is erroneous. It has often forgoten that one reason we have so many trees is because people use paper, so others go out and plant trees that would otherwise not exist. Sometimes people make the same argument about famine, that there's not enough food to go around. However, even in some horrible famines there has been enough food to around, but the problem was that the food did not get to were it needed to be. Likewise, 500 years ago people probably wouldn't have thought we'd have enough resources to enjoy our current standard of living.

Not to mention, even if you are right, I gaurantee there will be all sorts of innovation in the next several centuries that will allow us to do things more and more efficiently (just like we've had in the past several centuries). This will increase the amount of consumption that can be done.

However, I don't think many in the US consider raising the standard of living for the rest of the world to be worth having their own standard of living stagnate.

Good point, and I agree with you. However, this is also the reason I believe in such limited government and power. Why should the citizens of the US be allowed to decide how much citizens of China will be allowed to prosper and escape poverty? Would you trust me to make decisions that mainly effect your life?

[fourier jr]

China will never become a superpower until it does something about the enormous amounts of poverty and pollution rampant in its country.
Really? The United States managed to become one! Is the hypocrisy in the US really this blatant?

[OmCheeto]

You might be wrong about this. People often make this argument about there not being enough resources to go around.

Resources (even natural) are not fixed.

Ah. hahahhaaha! We live on a finite world.
How can resources not be fixed?


Not to mention, even if you are right, I gaurantee there will be all sorts of innovation in the next several centuries that will allow us to do things more and more efficiently (just like we've had in the past several centuries). This will increase the amount of consumption that can be done.

ah. hahahahaha! next several centuries? Have you heard of peak oil?
Can you say 50 years?
Why should the citizens of the US be allowed to decide how much citizens of China will be allowed to prosper and escape poverty? Would you trust me to make decisions that mainly effect your life?

hmmmm..... I consider the Chinese my allies and brothers. We should not fear the Chinese. We should learn Cantonese. Well, at least two words. :wink:

[DrClapeyron]

Ah. hahahhaaha! We live on a finite world.
How can resources not be fixed?


Because you do not know what you have untill it is gone.

The Chinese make pencils for students, I hardly think this makes them a world superpower.

[gravenewworld]

Really? The United States managed to become one! Is the hypocrisy in the US really this blatant?

I'll repeat myself again, have you even ever been to China? And I'm not talking about just to the major cities in China like Beijing, but have you ever even been to the countryside in China where people live in unbelievable squalor? No? The only reason you think that China has become a superpower is because of only what the media reports. I have passed by some of the places mention in the article below, and let me tell you it is nothing more than a hell hole on Earth.

From a WSJ article entitled

The Truth About China




The Western press is full of stories these days on China's arrival as a superpower. A steady stream of Western political and business delegations visit Beijing, confident of China's economy, which continues to grow rapidly. Investment pours in. Crowning China's new status, Beijing will host the 2008 Summer Olympics.

But after spending all of 2005 and some of 2006 traveling through China—visiting not just her teeming cities but her innermost recesses, where few Westerners go, and speaking with scores of dissidents, Communist Party officials, and everyday people -- my belief that the 21st century will not belong to the Chinese has only been reinforced. True, 200 million of China's subjects, fortunate to work for an expanding global market, are increasingly enjoying a middle-class standard of living. The remaining one billion, however, are among the poorest and most exploited people in the world, lacking even minimal rights and public services. The Party, while no longer totalitarian, is still cruel and oppressive.

Its mendacity has been fully displayed in China's AIDS crisis. The problem is gravest in Henan province, where an untold number of poor peasants contracted AIDS during the 1990s from selling their blood plasma—a process that involves having their blood drawn, pooled with other blood and then, once the plasma has been removed, put back into their bodies. China didn't conduct HIV tests and therefore ended up infecting donors by giving them back tainted blood. Victims are now reportedly dying in the hundreds of thousands.

The government's initial reaction was to deny that the problem existed, cordon off AIDS-affected areas and let the sick die (a pattern that the government tried to repeat when SARS broke out). In this case, police barred entry to villages where infected people lived (new maps of the province even appeared without the villages). Forced to acknowledge the problem after the international media began reporting on it, the Party nonetheless continues to obfuscate.

When Bill Clinton visited Henan in 2005 to distribute AIDS medicine, for example, the Party prevented him from visiting the worst-off villages. Instead, in Henan's capital city, he posed with several Party-selected AIDS orphans as the cameras clicked. It was an elaborate public-relations charade: China, with the West's help, was tackling AIDS!

Had Mr. Clinton been given a tour by Hu Jia, a human-rights activist, a far grimmer picture would have emerged. Only 30, he is a democrat and a practicing Buddhist who favors Tibetan independence. In 2004, Mr. Hu gave up studying medicine to look after Henan's sick. Months after Mr. Clinton's photo-op, Mr. Hu and I traveled to one of the villages that the former president missed: Nandawu, home to 3,500 people. It's not hard to visit—you can get past the police checkpoint at the village's entrance by hiding under a tarpaulin on a tractor-trailer, and the police fear AIDS too much to enter the village itself.

What I saw there, however, will remain with me forever. The disease inflicts at least 80% of the families there; in every hovel we entered an invalid lay dying. Most of the sufferers had no medicine. One woman put a drip on her sick husband, a man who has been bedridden for two years and who is covered with sores. What did the bottle contain? She didn't know. Why was she doing this? "I saw in the hospital and on television that sick people had to be put on the drip."

As long as Mr. Hu worked alone to help the sick, bringing them clothes, money and food, the Party left him alone. But he has recently drawn attention to himself by urging the victims to form an organization that can demand more from the government. The Party will sometimes put up with isolated dissent, but it won't tolerate an "unauthorized" association. Several months ago, the government placed Mr. Hu under house arrest in Beijing.

But dissent cannot be stifled everywhere. There has been an explosion of revolts in the vast countryside. The government estimates the number of public clashes with the authorities (some occurring in the industrial suburbs too) at 60,000 a year. But some experts think that the true figure is upward of 150,000 and increasing. When, in late 2006, I reached one village in the heart of the Shaanxi Province after a 40-hour journey from Beijing by train, car and tractor, I saw no trace of an uprising that had taken place a month earlier. Alerted by a text message sent from the village, the Hong Kong press had reported a violent clash between the peasants and the police, leaving people injured and missing or even dead, with the authorities spiriting away the bodies.

I pieced together the reasons that had provoked the uprising. The village had a dilapidated school, without heating, chalk or a teacher. In principle, schooling is compulsory and free, but the Party secretary, the village kingpin, made parents pay for heating and chalk. Then a teacher came from the city who wanted to be paid more than his government wages. He demanded extra money from the parents. Half of the parents, members of the most prosperous clan, agreed; the other half, from the poorer clan, refused.

A skirmish erupted, and the teacher fled. The Party secretary tried to intervene and was lynched. Then the police roared in with batons and guns. The school has reopened, the teacher replaced with a villager who knows how to read and write but "nothing more than that," he admits.

The uprisings express peasants' despair over the bleak future that awaits them. Emigration from the countryside might be a way out, but it's not easy to find a permanent job in the city. All kinds of permits are necessary, and the only way to get them is to bribe bureaucrats. The lot of the migrant—and China now has 200 million of them—is to move from work site to work site, earning a pittance at best. The migrants usually don't receive permission to bring their families with them, and even if they could, obtaining accommodation and schooling for their children would be virtually impossible.

The fate of Chinese citizens often depends on where they are from. Someone born in Shanghai is considered an aristocrat and conferred the right to housing and schooling in Shanghai. Someone born in a village, however, can only go to the village school, until a university admits him -- a rare feat for a peasant. An American scholar, Feiling Wang, had come to China to study this system of discrimination, which few in the West know about, but the government expelled him.

Villagers often told me that it wasn't the local Party secretary whom they most hated, but rather the family-planning agents who enforce China's one-child policy, often subjecting women to horrific violence. The one-child policy is not only monstrous, it is yielding an increasingly elderly population in need of care—a problem that a poor country like China is unprepared to handle.

Will China's surging economic growth end the rumbling discontent? Not according to the esteemed economist Mao Yushi, under house arrest for asking the government to apologize for the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. He doesn't trust the Party's claims of a 10% annual growth rate -- and why believe the official statistics when the Party lies so consistently about everything? Doing his own calculations, he arrives at a rate of about 8% per year, vigorous but no "miracle," as some in the West describe it.

Moreover, he believes that the current growth rate isn't sustainable: natural bottlenecks—scarcity of energy, raw materials, and especially water—will get in the way. Also, Mr. Mao says, the fact that investment decisions frequently obey political considerations instead of the market has helped generate an unemployment rate that is likely closer to 20% than to the officially acknowledged 3.5%.

Many in the West think that Chinese growth has created an independent middle class that will push for greater political freedom. But what exists in China, Mr. Mao argues, is not a traditional middle class but a class of parvenus, newcomers who work in the military, public administration, state enterprises or for firms ostensibly private but in fact Party-owned.

The Party picks up most of the tab for their mobile phones, restaurant bills, "study" trips abroad, imported luxury cars and lavish spending at Las Vegas casinos. And it can withdraw these advantages at any time. In March, China announced that it would introduce individual property rights for the parvenus (though not for the peasants). They will now be able to pass on to their children what they have acquired—another reason that they aren't likely to push for the democratization of the regime that secures their status.

Because China's economy desperately needs Western consumers and investors, China's propagandists do all they can to woo foreign critics. "Do you dare deny China's success story, her social stability, economic growth, cultural renaissance and international restraint?" one Party-sponsored scholar asks me in Paris. I respond that political and religious oppression, censorship, entrenched rural poverty, family-planning excesses and rampant corruption are just as real as economic growth in today's China. "What you are saying is true, but affects only a minority yet to benefit from reforms," he asserts.

Yet nothing guarantees that this so-called minority—one billion people!—will integrate with modern China. It is just as possible that it will remain poor, since it has no say in determining its fate, even as Party members get richer. The scholar underscores my fundamental assumption: "You don't have any confidence in the Party's ability to resolve the pertinent issues you have raised."

That's true. I don't.

©2007 The Wall Street Journ





The Soviet Union had tons of poverty and pollution and they were a superpower no prob. China has nukes and their own space program already, dude. Soon they may have their own GPS satellite network (which only the U.S. and the Russian Federation / ex-Soviets have right now) and will probably be on the moon. And they're just getting started.


Since when does becoming a nuclear power equate to being a superpower? North Korea has nukes but has way too much poverty and such low standards of living that they are centuries away from ever becoming a superpower. You realize that China ranks only about 80-100th in the world in terms of GDP per capita right? All of that new "wealth" that China is supposedly getting is hardly being evenly distributed among its population. If you have never been to China then you wouldn't know. You have to see with your own eyes how many millions of people in China live in extreme poverty.

[OmCheeto]

Because you do no know what you have untill it is gone.

The Chinese make pencils for students, I hardly think this makes them a world superpower.
They are doing a lot more than that.
Virtually every durable good I have purchased in the last 2 years has been made in China.
The next car I was considering buying is made in China.

But I heard the people of India are making a car about the same size for a quarter of the price. Finally, a car I can afford with less than 100,000 miles on the odometer....

[mheslep]

Canada is a member of NATO and they know if anyone messes with them, we'll jump to their aid. ...

Really? The United States managed to become one! Is the hypocrisy in the US really this blatant?Well maybe NATO need not save all the Canadians.

[DrClapeyron]

The Chinese manufacture durable goods like bicycles and baby seats but not F-14's and GPS satellites.

[OmCheeto]

The Chinese manufacture durable goods like bicycles and baby seats but not F-14's and GPS satellites.

Ok. But who shot down who's satellite last year?
Or should I check out snopes?

I think I'm trying to be the ambassador here.
Why are we picking on China?
Are we feeling a bit insecure?

[mheslep]

I see there's a huge range of estimates on China's GDP now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)). I'm fairly sure the generally accepted figure was $11 trillion against the US's $13-14 trillion for perspective, and if China could somehow maintained its ~11% growth rate it would catch the US in 5 years. Now I see the world bank shows 5.3 trillion and the CIA has $7 trillion which Im fairly sure is a revision. I vaguely recall something on some discovery of major accounting flaws; can't nail it down.

Edit: yep, here we go:
China's economy is smaller than was thought (http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10329268)

[DrClapeyron]

Ok. But who shot down who's satellite last year?
Or should I check out snopes?

I think I'm trying to be the ambassador here.
Why are we picking on China?
Are we feeling a bit insecure?


Richard Nixon went to China in the 1970's in which he pursued trade negotiations with the CHinese. Since then there has been a debate how much the US should invest in Chinese labor and resource. China has the largest potential in the world; there is no other country in the world like it in terms of population and natural resources and human capital. India lacks the natural resources and has been seeking isolationist policies since independence.

[CaptainQuasar]

Since when does becoming a nuclear power equate to being a superpower?

Nukes alone don't. Nukes, plus the things above that I mentioned - an autonomous space program, a GPS system, and putting a man on the moon would. Having a gigantic military-industrial complex and the largest standing army in the world helps too.

I'll turn it around on you: since when does having a low poverty rate and a high standard of living equate to being a superpower? Switzerland and Dubai do pretty well on those counts, are they superpowers? Are you saying this because the U.S. does an exceptionally great job with poverty?

And why did you ignore my point that the Soviet Union didn't do well on either of those counts?

The Chinese manufacture durable goods like bicycles and baby seats but not F-14's and GPS satellites.

I'm not so sure about the GPS satellites, I don't think they're contracting that out, and I know that MacDonnell-Douglas started moving operations over there in the seventies; I'm pretty sure they're manufacturing all kinds of aircraft over there at this point.

Even if you don't believe they make those things, if they've put a man in space how much longer do you think it will be before they do?⚛

[CaptainQuasar]

Richard Nixon went to China in the 1970's in which he pursued trade negotiations with the CHinese. Since then there has been a debate how much the US should invest in Chinese labor and resource. China has the largest potential in the world; there is no other country in the world like it in terms of population and natural resources and human capital. India lacks the natural resources and has been seeking isolationist policies since independence.

With all due respect, it sounds like you're working with information that's decades out of date. There isn't a debate about US and world investment in China, that investment has been going on strong since the 70's. At this point China is investing in other parts of the world itself.

And are you talking about India since independence from the British Empire?!? Do you have any idea how much the world and India have changed since then? India is very much a part of the world economy.⚛

[gravenewworld]

Nukes alone don't. Nukes, plus the things above that I mentioned - an autonomous space program, a GPS system, and putting a man on the moon would. Having a gigantic military-industrial complex and the largest standing army in the world helps too.

I'll turn it around on you: since when does having a low poverty rate and a high standard of living equate to being a superpower? Switzerland and Dubai do pretty well on those counts, are they superpowers? Are you saying this because the U.S. does an exceptionally great job with poverty?

And why did you ignore my point that the Soviet Union didn't do well on either of those counts?




Military strength means nothing without high standards of living. A superpower must have them all. Switzerland and Dubai certainly have high standards of living, but where is their military might? Why did you choose to ignore the fact that China is only ranked about 80-100 in the world in terms of GDP per capita? There certainly is poverty in the US (it is in every country in the world), but you will not see anyone in the US in extreme poverty like the millions of those in the country side like in China.


Russia did have poverty and military strength, but what happened to them? They didn't achieve superpower status until the end of WW2 and were crumbled only a few decades later due in large part to their nonexistent economy and low standards of living.

[OmCheeto]

I'll repeat myself again, have you even ever been to China? nope.
And I'm not talking about just to the major cities in China like Beijing, but have you ever even been to the countryside in China where people live in unbelievable squalor? No? The only reason you think that China has become a superpower is because of only what the media reports. I have passed by some of the places mention in the article below, and let me tell you it is nothing more than a hell hole on Earth.
You have to see with your own eyes how many millions of people in China live in extreme poverty.

Well, I can only imagine that it is different than it is here.
Extreme Poverty, means something different to someone accustomed to having a plush house and car as compared to someone who just want's to see their children not starve to death.

The world is so different wherever you go.

I once invited a Chinese person to America. He left my old forum.
I even offered to pay the plane ticket! To Hawaii!

He said the world sucked.(I'm paraphrasing his words.) I told him that; "the world may only suck in your localized region."

I never heard from him again.

[gravenewworld]

nope.


Well, I can only imagine that it is different than it is here.
Extreme Poverty, means something different to someone accustomed to having a plush house and car as compared to someone who just want's to see their children not starve to death.

The world is so different wherever you go.

I once invited a Chinese person to America. He left my old forum.
I even offered to pay the plane ticket! To Hawaii!

He said the world sucked.(I'm paraphrasing his words.) I told him that; "the world may only suck in your localized region."

I never heard from him again.

Extreme poverty has a definition:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/0,,contentMDK:20153855~menuPK:373757~pagePK:148956 ~piPK:216618~theSitePK:336992,00.html


It is those living on roughly less than $1 per day. China has millions of people in this category.


Millions of people have mass migrated from rural areas in China to huge urban centers in hopes of escaping terrible poverty. The question now becomes who is going to grow all the food and farm the land to feed 1.2 billion people if everyone is leaving the terrible impoverished conditions in the countryside that tons of Chinese farmers have to live in everyday? The corruption and class conflicts in China make it almost impossible for thousands of people to escape impoverished conditions. Like the WSJ article pointed out, it is increasingly leading to more and more destabilization in more remote parts of the country.

[mheslep]

Military strength means nothing without high standards of living. A superpower must have them all. Why?

...Why did you choose to ignore the fact that China is only ranked about 80-100 in the world in terms of GDP per capita? ...Note that it's not meaningful to talk about 'military per capita' as a country needs only one. China's not comparable to G7 countries (yet) in terms of standard of living, but it's gross GDP certainly is and that may be all thats needed to build a super 'military' power. The soviets were a totalitarian system with failed economic system; the Chinese have (so far) maintained a ~ totalitarian political system w/ a highly successful economic system.

[OmCheeto]

Extreme poverty has a definition:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/0,,contentMDK:20153855~menuPK:373757~pagePK:148956 ~piPK:216618~theSitePK:336992,00.html


It is those living on roughly less than $1 per day. China has millions of people in this category.


Millions of people have mass migrated from rural areas in China to huge urban centers in hopes of escaping terrible poverty. The question now becomes who is going to grow all the food and farm the land to feed 1.2 billion people if everyone is leaving the terrible impoverished conditions in the countryside that tons of Chinese farmers have to live in everyday? The corruption and class conflicts in China make it almost impossible for thousands of people to escape impoverished conditions. Like the WSJ article pointed out, it is increasingly leading to more and more destabilization in more remote parts of the country.

Hence. I will quote myself once again; "Have none but the Chinese been paying attention?"

[binzing]

Hmmm, why should we worry? So human rights abuse, horrendous pollution, and communism don't worry you?

[gravenewworld]

Why?


See North Korea.

Note that it's not meaningful to talk about 'military per capita' as a country needs only one. China's not comparable to G7 countries (yet) in terms of standard of living, but it's gross GDP certainly is and that may be all thats needed to build a super 'military' power. The soviets were a totalitarian system with failed economic system; the Chinese have (so far) maintained a ~ totalitarian political system w/ a highly successful economic system.

But total GDP means nothing, GDP in terms of per capita is always the much more better measurement of wealth and standard of living. You can only keep your people impoverished for so long until they revolt. Look at all of the examples in history like the French Revolution , the fall of the USSR, etc. Huge amounts of gross GDP are also worthless if it is not evenly distributed. In China, if you have ever been there, you have the SUPER wealthy and then you have the SUPER poor. There is a growing middle class, but even they are light years away in terms of wealth from the upper classes.

[CaptainQuasar]

Military strength means nothing without high standards of living.

Uh, yeah it does mean something. It means you're a superpower if your military power is great enough.

A superpower must have them all.

Says who, you?

Why did you choose to ignore the fact that China is only ranked about 80-100 in the world in terms of GDP per capita?

Because I'm not trying to prove China is a superpower. You're trying to prove they can't be a superpower because of social issues.

Russia did have poverty and military strength, but what happened to them? They didn't achieve superpower status until the end of WW2 and were crumbled only a few decades later due in large part to their nonexistent economy and low standards of living.

The U.S. wasn't considered a superpower until after WWII either.

Poverty rates and standards of living simply are not things that define superpowers. You've just declared that one of the two countries for which the term was invented is not worthy of your personal standards for a superpower.

I think I hear the sound of an axe grinding…

Go ahead, make your point about there being poverty in China. No one is going to disagree with you. You don't have to invent some reason to shout “You can't handle the truth!”. I would have taken your opinion on the matter much more seriously if you hadn't contrived such a cheesy way to bring it up.⚛

[binzing]

Plus, look at the US. Now imagine that with 1 billion people! Need I say more?

[drankin]

I spent a week in Ningbo, across the bay from Shanghai. The sun never shines there due to the smog. Developement is huge but it's done by workers who live at the worksite and hang on bamboo scaffolding. They want all things "Western" in their own fashion over there. I never saw any hositility towards the West but there were a lot of folks trying to take me for my last cent when I tried to buy anything. The living conditions I saw were 3rd world. China is a power but not a "superpower" IMO. The are extremely dependent on the Western world. Without it they would be ruined. In a nearby business park that spanned several square miles, every major company in the world you could think of has a factory of some sort.

If they were to attack any Western country, they would be shooting themselves in the foot, if not cutting off both their legs off.

[mheslep]

See North Korea.?? NK is dirt poor. Even if a country spends 70% of its GDP on the military if the GDP is nil then so is the military. See China. 4.3% of GDP military spending (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html#Military) = $280Billion ('06). That's probably #2 or close to it.

But total GDP means nothing, GDP in terms of per capita is always the much more better measurement of wealth and standard of living. You can only keep your people impoverished for so long until they revolt. Look at all of the examples in history like the French Revolution , the fall of the USSR, etc. Huge amounts of gross GDP are also worthless ...No. The Soviets never had a huge GDP. They bled the country so that a huge fraction of the economy was all military directed, the consequence of which was that even though the Soviet economy was a fraction of the size of the US the military spending of the two were roughly comparable. Caveat: this was true at least until the Reagan years when he said "I call and raise you $1 trillion." Soviets replied "glasnost!" and folded.

[binzing]

My point exactly drankin, as to why they need to not try and follow after the U.S. Pollution will only get worse if they do.(assuming worse is possible)

[russ_watters]

What do you mean here? I think to state that their development is "helping their people somewhat" is a gross underestimate. Also, what do you mean "at the expense of their people?" I have heard that China's development has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, which to be sure is no small feat. How has hundreds of millions of people raising out of poverty hurt the others? I'm pretty sure that the others have not gotten poorer because some of their neighbors have become richer. There are a few problems with China's development as a result of their government (mentioned by others):

-They are utterly destroying their environment (which also kills people).
-Their labor laws are inadequate to put it mildly (which also kills people).
-Their government is harsh when dealing with political dissent (they kill people).

[DrClapeyron]

With all due respect, it sounds like you're working with information that's decades out of date. There isn't a debate about US and world investment in China, that investment has been going on strong since the 70's. At this point China is investing in other parts of the world itself.

And are you talking about India since independence from the British Empire?!? Do you have any idea how much the world and India have changed since then? India is very much a part of the world economy.⚛

There is a debate in this thread concerning investment in Chinese labor and resource. The power of the CHinese to manufacture rubber bands is huge but can they manufacture commercial jets or surface to air defense systems that compete on the global level? Not at this point but at which point?

India continues to manufacture textiles and recieves the same industrial input when it was a colony, this continues because the isolationist policies people believe that were thrusted upon them by the likes of Ghandi. The global impact of India continues to be its production of textiles not automobiles or industrial chemicals. That is exactly how much India has changed.

[Economist]

There are a few problems with China's development as a result of their government (mentioned by others):


-They are utterly destroying their environment (which also kills people).

Again, there is a trade-off. How many people is their environmental problems killing and how many people was poverty killing? As well as other questions, such as, will them becoming more prosperous help with innovations and technologies that actually help the environment?

-Their labor laws are inadequate to put it mildly (which also kills people).

I don't know about labor laws, but I generally opposed most labor laws so I don't see this as a huge issue (but I realize most disagree).

-Their government is harsh when dealing with political dissent (they kill people).

I agree. China is becoming more economically free, but they are not politically free. Freedom across the board is very important and I do not condone their political system that allows them to kill dissenters.

[drankin]

My point exactly drankin, as to why they need to not try and follow after the U.S. Pollution will only get worse if they do.(assuming worse is possible)


I don't think that's entirely fair, and it's not just the US they are following. Most European countries have a hand in the labor over there. They are following who they want to follow. Industrialization has a cost to any civilization. They could enact pollution reduction practices if the government had the forsight to enforce it but I imagine they are more interested in the short term profits and competing with other 3rd world countries. It's their choice on how to handle it. It's by know means our fault they choose to take short-cuts instead of learning from our environmental mistakes of the past.

[Economist]

Ah. hahahhaaha! We live on a finite world.
How can resources not be fixed?

Hahahaha!

Trees are "finite," but none of us seem to worry about not having enough for paper. Not to mention, even though trees are finite, we have plenty of people who intentionally grow trees in order to make a living. In other words, we have many trees precisely because people value trees enough to pay others to plant them.

Likewise, we have plenty of cows, horses, cats, dogs, etc, precisely because people can have property rights on these animals and that people can make some profit off of them. In fact, the problem with many endangered species is that it's illegal to own them (in other words, there are no property rights for them).

What about food? Isn't corn, milk, wheat, strawberries, etc finite? However, are you worried about their not being enough to go around? Drugs such as tobacco and marijuana are finite. Do you think that people will quit smoking these in the next couple hundred years because there is not enough to go around?

Notice that "natural" and "finite" are not the same thing as "fixed" (in other words, "natural" and "finite" can still be "variable"). Notice that human beings are able to control (at least to some degree) the amount of many natural resources.

Yes, with oil there are some differences. However, it has also been pointed out that there are many untapped oil reserves. Why has no one decided to get this oil out of the ground in some places? Precisely because it is "not worth it" (yet) to do so. Some oil reserves are more expensive to extract, and therefore the current payoff is not high enough to warrant extracting it. As oil becomes more and more scarce, and if consumers are demanding it at nearly the same rate, then the price will rise enough in order to actually make it profitable to extract the oil at these places. I am under the impression that the statistics that you cite (which state that oil will be gone in 50 years) make some mistakes. For one thing, I think they don't account for all of the untapped oil reserves. Furthermore, they assume that people will use oil at the exact same rate. Oil is obviously running out, however I just don't know how accurate the 50 years stat is.

To put it briefly, I'm just not as worried as you are about the oil situation. First of all, if oil is quickly depleting then prices will rise and people will surely substitute away from oil. For example, people will move closer to work, carpool more, ride their bike more, use public transportation more, drive less often for entertainment reasons, etc. Second, if oil is becoming more and more expensive, entrepenuers will surely be able to make very large profits by inventing alternatives. In other words, you're likely to see some great innovation in this industry.

[fourier jr]

I'll repeat myself again, have you even ever been to China? And I'm not talking about just to the major cities in China like Beijing, but have you ever even been to the countryside in China where people live in unbelievable squalor? No? The only reason you think that China has become a superpower is because of only what the media reports. I have passed by some of the places mention in the article below, and let me tell you it is nothing more than a hell hole on Earth.

From a WSJ article entitled

The Truth About China

What are the chances that an American would read an article in the Wall Street Journal called "The Truth About America" showing the appalling state of poverty & easily-treatable health problems that people have (but which aren't covered under their health plans) in the world's wealthiest country? Not likely at all.

[drankin]

What are the chances that an American would read an article in the Wall Street Journal called "The Truth About America" showing the appalling state of poverty & easily-treatable health problems that people have (but which aren't covered under their health plans) in the world's wealthiest country? Not likely at all.

Not to be antagonistic, but what are these health problems that are easily treated and not covered by any health plans? Other than obesity which can be treated very effectively by ones own lifestyle.

[ShawnD]

The next car I was considering buying is made in China.
:rofl:
gg buddy (http://youtube.com/watch?v=F06LjugtIUo)

[drankin]

:rofl:
gg buddy (http://youtube.com/watch?v=F06LjugtIUo)

brutal!

[CaptainQuasar]

There is a debate in this thread concerning investment in Chinese labor and resource. The power of the CHinese to manufacture rubber bands is huge but can they manufacture commercial jets or surface to air defense systems that compete on the global level? Not at this point but at which point?

India continues to manufacture textiles and recieves the same industrial input when it was a colony, this continues because the isolationist policies people believe that were thrusted upon them by the likes of Ghandi. The global impact of India continues to be its production of textiles not automobiles or industrial chemicals. That is exactly how much India has changed.

You're objecting that they might be making jets and defense systems that only compete domestically in the largest country in the world?

And of course their space program is competing on a global level, isn't it? What are you talking about pencils and rubber bands for when they've put a man in space? That's like saying the economy of the United States is simply a big burger-flipping service industry economy.

China has what will be the largest and most productive hydroelectric dam in the world when it goes online, the Three Gorges Dam. They're also the only country in the world to be actively developing one of the most advanced nuclear reactor designs in the world, pebble-bed reactor technology. As well as being in the process of constructing more nuclear power plants based upon current technology than any other nation in the world.

Their stock market is fully electronic (the NYSE is not). According to James McGregor's One Billion Customers (http://www.onebillioncustomers.com/) (2007) China has the most advanced national telecommunications infrastructure in the world.

Why are you trying to convince people that all they make is pencils and rubber bands? That's not even true for what they export, they make all kinds of high-tech electronics and advanced industrial products that are used all over the world.

As far as India, as a software engineer I can tell you that they're a world leader in software development and engineering. In fact they've been recognized for national excellence in software quality engineering (process engineering, basically.)

For another example, I believe that India is the only place that has a functioning OTEC power plant (a new technology that generates electricity based upon the temperature gradient between the deep ocean and the surface of the ocean.) They also make lots of other things besides textiles, like cars and agrochemicals, and they have the Bollywood film industry, the largest film industry in the world. I'm sure I'd have more examples if I read as much about them as I do China.

I repeat, you're working with something like a 1981 understanding of these countries' economies.⚛

[drankin]

I guess by definition, they are in fact a world power:

world power
–noun a nation, organization, or institution so powerful that it is capable of influencing or changing the course of world events.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1880–85]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

[drankin]

Wow, this is interesting:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330320,00.html

[edward]

Not to be antagonistic, but what are these health problems that are easily treated and not covered by any health plans? Other than obesity which can be treated very effectively by ones own lifestyle.

Most health plans love to cover the easily treated health problems. What people don't know about are the agreements between the doctors and the HMO's that restrict the doctor form telling patients about other viable treatment options for more serious illnesses.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E6D81439F932A15751C1A9639582 60

[CaptainQuasar]

Yeah, also things which are easily treated but expensive to treat.⚛

[drankin]

Well, I don't know what these "things" are you are talking about but we are getting off topic.

[CaptainQuasar]

Health problems which are easily treated. Note edward's comment immediately above mine, also talking about easily treated health problems. Sorry if my wild non sequitur was confusing, I'm a bit of a loose cannon. :tongue2:

You asked that question, it's really not kosher of you to call out responses to it as off topic.⚛

[OmCheeto]

:rofl:
gg buddy (http://youtube.com/watch?v=F06LjugtIUo)

The only people I know that have been in car crashes have been drunks, retards, on a cell phone, or been under the age of 21. If you pay attention, you can see them coming.

With the exception of my mom who learned to drive at the age of 41, two weeks before my dad said she had to drive the Al-Can highway in November. Now that was a ride! (I was 4)

Gads. What does this have to do with China?

Life is going to be a roller coaster for a couple of years I guess.
Listen to the old folks.

"People laugh at things they do not understand"; Goethe
My Russian acquaintance told me that about 4 hours ago.
We were talking about something.

[Riogho]

Who cares if china a super power? If t the united states focuses more on defending it national borders instead placing its armed forces in other countries, then we should not worry about another nation invading and taken over our country. Whats wrong with just being a 2nd rate world power? Canada is not a superpower and no other country has tried to invade it; in addition , I believe their education system for math and science is rated in the top ten among nations in the world along with Japan. I would like to hear your thoughts.

CAUSE THEIR FRIKKIN COMMIES!!!!!
#@#$%^$


LOWELT EYE

[mheslep]

-They are utterly destroying their environment (which also kills people).Again, there is a trade-off. How many people is their environmental problems killing and how many people was poverty killing? As well as other questions, such as, will them becoming more prosperous help with innovations and technologies that actually help the environment?Economist: if you are proposing that the environmental destruction occurring in China as part of a growing economy is an aspect of free market economics that would have the blessings of a Hayek or a Friedman, you are mistaken.

[Economist]

Economist: if you are proposing that the environmental destruction occurring in China as part of a growing economy is an aspect of free market economics that would have the blessings of a Hayek or a Friedman, you are mistaken.

Hayek and Friedman both realize that you may need some environmental regulation, precisely because of weakly defined property rights. However, Hayek and Freidman also realize the very real trade-off between pollution and prosperity. Furthermore, I doubt you would find Hayek and Friedman very worried about the current environmental problems in China if they were alive.

[russ_watters]

Again, there is a trade-off. How many people is their environmental problems killing and how many people was poverty killing? Yes, there is a trade-off. But with just a little bit of effort, they could avoid a lot of those negative consequences without significantly reducing the positive ones.
As well as other questions, such as, will them becoming more prosperous help with innovations and technologies that actually help the environment? Becoming more prosperous doesn't have anything to do with developing innovations and technologies that help the environemnt: they've already been invented and the Chinese choose not to use them. Russia, because of the USSR, is a toxic wasteland and China, because of its government, is going to follow. I don't know about labor laws, but I generally opposed most labor laws so I don't see this as a huge issue (but I realize most disagree). How much of the history of that have you learned? The standard of living issue gets very muddy when you look back at the industrial revolution. Some people got very rich and a lot of people lived just miserable lives. Fires decimated major cities, boiler explosions killed thousands, black lung disease tens of thousands. I do think many such regulations go too far, but I suspect that health and safety standards have as much to do with the doubling of the average lifespan in the past century as industrialization and medical advances. I'm an engineer, a profession that started as a trade (like carpentry). Part of the development of engineering into a licensed profession includes criminal and financial liability for the consequences of poor designs.

Now perhaps you prefer the Ron Paul approach (punishment via lawsuit vs prevention via regulation), but a lot of businessmen are greedy and dumb. It is disturbing how many simply don't understand the concepts of risk assessment and ROI. That method will not prevent the type of environment that existed prior to enacting of such standards.

[mheslep]

Hayek and Friedman both realize that you may need some environmental regulation, precisely because of weakly defined property rights. However, Hayek and Freidman also realize the very real trade-off between pollution and prosperity. Furthermore, I doubt you would find Hayek and Friedman very worried about the current environmental problems in China if they were alive.Not a chance, at least in Friedman's case, who was around long enough to know something of the bio - environment. Those assertions ignore Friedman's main point hammered home again and again: that people be allowed to make decisions freely, without coercion, either by your neighbors or the state. They certainly are many poor people improving their lot somewhat in now in China, but they have no zero power to say anything about the suffocating puke they live in. If they had the power to sue the factory upstream, or at least petition the government, they might well do it, or not if the pollution is not that bad. Yes pollution is a part of economic activity, but that doesn't imply its an external factor that people must simply live with. They should get to choose. Friedman would be the last guy to believe he could decide for them that they're better off choking to death since they could buy shoes. He'd be the first to point out that those people are not free to choose.

[mheslep]

This is an interesting post, so Im jumping in here
How much of the history of that have you learned? The standard of living issue gets very muddy when you look back at the industrial revolution. Some people got very rich and a lot of people lived just miserable lives. Fires decimated major cities, boiler explosions killed thousands, black lung disease tens of thousands.
Yes, but be careful here. If there's common misunderstanding of the history of the time I think the scale tilts the other way:a myth perpetuated by government and baby kissing politicians that it solved these problems. The great private nonprofit hospitals (e.g. Our Lady of the ...) were all founded in the 19th century. The saying back in the 1920's was that the "very poor can get medicine, the very rich can get good medicine, the people in between are ... squeezed". The Red Cross was founded in the 19th century, so was the Boy Scouts, Carnegie's 1500 public libraries in the 1900's, an on and on. My point is don't rely on Upton Sinclair for a one book take away of the time.

I do think many such regulations go too far, but I suspect that health and safety standards have as much to do with the doubling of the average lifespan in the past century as industrialization and medical advances.
Id grant you some, maybe, but govt standards doubling the lifespan? I highly doubt it. I suspect something like Ralph Nader's 1965 Unsafe at any speed, in which he destroyed the Corvair, would be a common rally point for the govt H & S position. Nader said:
For over half a century the auto[] has brought death, injury, and the most inestimable sorrow and deprivation to millions of people. With Media-like intensity, this mass trauma began rising sharply four years ago reflecting new and unexpected ravages...
But:
-nowhere does Nader present auto' accident fatality rates over time for the Corvair vs other automobiles
-Nader said auto accidents were rising. Oh no! So was the population, so was the number of cars. In proportion to population, fatality rates in '65 were half of '20 levels.
-With its rear engine placement, the Corvair was indeed more prone to some kinds of accidents. It was also less prone to others.
-US Dept of Transportation later showed that the Corvair "is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles" [1]

Now perhaps you prefer the Ron Paul approach (punishment via lawsuit vs prevention via regulation), but a lot of businessmen are greedy and dumb. Yep, many are greedy and dumb. But so are many government officials and bureaucrats, and they largely don't get fired or go out of business for fouling up! The US has 21 million people employed by the government (2001, civilians only) or almost 1 in 6 of everyone working (http://www.independentsector.org/PDFs/npemployment.pdf). How have we possibly come to believe that these just as greedy and dumb masses on the govt. payroll are somehow enlightened to provide the best route to our health and safety?
That method will not prevent the type of environment that existed prior to enacting of such standards.There's evidence that private property rights did provide an alternative in the early history of the country(until the ~1840s), later courts stopped recognizing the claims. There's also evidence that current regulations are doing harm: Vaccine companies all leaving the market, had enough, etc.

[1] Thomas Sowell 'Applied Economics'

[||spoon||]

What do you mean here? I think to state that their development is "helping their people somewhat" is a gross underestimate. Also, what do you mean "at the expense of their people?" I have heard that China's development has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, which to be sure is no small feat. How has hundreds of millions of people raising out of poverty hurt the others? I'm pretty sure that the others have not gotten poorer because some of their neighbors have become richer.


Actually i believe quite a lot of people ARE suffering. Im no expert but i believe that due to China's growing economy the prices of everyday essential items (food in particular) has risen dramatically. China has a large population of people that could only just afford food before this widespread general price rise for goods... How are these people supposed to feed and support themselves and thier families now? I would say that this may be recognised as "at the expense of others".

[drankin]

Actually i believe quite a lot of people ARE suffering. Im no expert but i believe that due to China's growing economy the prices of everyday essential items (food in particular) has risen dramatically. China has a large population of people that could only just afford food before this widespread general price rise for goods... How are these people supposed to feed and support themselves and thier families now? I would say that this may be recognised as "at the expense of others".

As a Scottish man who had been living in China for 10yrs told me in a pub in Ningbo, "noone here is starving, this is communism". Surely he was speaking of the local area (and all the "fake" beggars), but his point is that the government is ultimately responsible for feeding everyone in China. How true this is, I really don't know. He had been there awhile though and I hadn't seen anyone starving or in dire need. Communism + Capitalism seems to work over there. Noone really owns any property, or even themselves I suppose, everything and everyone belongs to China.

[CaptainQuasar]

The famines during the last century in China were mostly due to stupid, arrogant things that Mao did in running the country like he was playing with dolls. I'm pretty sure that the expansion of the economy during the last couple of decades has made famines and shortages less likely to happen, not exacerbated those sorts of problems.⚛

[Art]

As a Scottish man who had been living in China for 10yrs told me in a pub in Ningbo, "noone here is starving, this is communism". Surely he was speaking of the local area (and all the "fake" beggars), but his point is that the government is ultimately responsible for feeding everyone in China. How true this is, I really don't know. He had been there awhile though and I hadn't seen anyone starving or in dire need. Communism + Capitalism seems to work over there. Noone really owns any property, or even themselves I suppose, everything and everyone belongs to China.You must have had this conversation 20 years ago. These days China is no more communist than the US and has far fewer social programs to help the needy. It has all the worst elements of extreme capitalism without any of the controls such as multi-party elections and so corruption is rampant with all the problems that entails re product safety, individual rights etc..

There is one small town which practices communism and it is so rare it has become a tourist destination for young Chinese to see how their parents used to live.

[mheslep]

You must have had this conversation 20 years ago. These days China is no more communist than the US and has far fewer social programs to help the needy.Communism historically has had two parts: political and and economic. China set the economy loose, but politically it is still very much a totalitarian communist state. To be in political power you must be a member of the communist party, period. No opposition allowed, as any of the survivors of Tiananmen Square will tell you. Furthermore, I wouldn't blame the troubles in China on Capitalism anymore than Id blame the plow for oppressing the slave lashed to it; rather I'd blame the lack of any democratic opposition. Example: The Three Gorges Dam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam) project was made possible by the capital funding of $23B, but also displaced 1.5 million people and AFAICT is an environmental disaster Those 1.5 million were displaced not by capitalism, but by the communist government. They never had a choice.


* Couldn't help but comment on the size! Just saw the generating capacity of the thing will be 23GW, 4-5x the size of the largest US plant at Palo Verde.

[Art]

China is a totalitarian dictatorship. Communism is an ideology centred on common ownership.

The dictatorship that governs China may have kept the name but they are no more communist than the Nazi Socialist Party were socialists.

[drankin]

You must have had this conversation 20 years ago. These days China is no more communist than the US and has far fewer social programs to help the needy. It has all the worst elements of extreme capitalism without any of the controls such as multi-party elections and so corruption is rampant with all the problems that entails re product safety, individual rights etc..

There is one small town which practices communism and it is so rare it has become a tourist destination for young Chinese to see how their parents used to live.

I was there during Christmas 2005.

[mheslep]

China is a totalitarian dictatorship. Communism is an ideology centered on common ownership.
The dictatorship that governs China may have kept the name but they are no more communist than the Nazi Socialist Party were socialists.Granted the ownership piece has changed but China was totalitarian dictatorship under Mao as well. So by this logic you're saying China has never been communist?

As I said it's a socio and economic question. One could argue ownership was never common in China under Mao, except in commonality of deprivation.

[Astronuc]

China is a totalitarian dictatorship. Communism is an ideology centred on common ownership. The cavaets of that however is that the people aren't smart enough to run the economy or utilitize what they own, so a few people, i.e. the leaders of the communist party will do it for them. At best the 'communist' systems have been oligarchies, not true communist systems.

[CaptainQuasar]

These days China is no more communist than the US and has far fewer social programs to help the needy.

China's social programs as a whole undoubtedly have a smaller combined budget of those in the U.S. but I wouldn't be surprised if there are numerically more of them. There were all kinds of quasi-political quasi-social-program organizations set up in the last century and the Chinese culturally love fellowship societies.

I don't think it's accurate to say that China is no more communist than the U.S. Though greatly diminished the danwei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%95%E4%BD%8D) 单位 system of state-organized work units is still in place and still employs, pays pensions to, and plays mother-and-father to many people there. Up until 2003 a worker still needed the permission of his danwei to get married.⚛

[mjsd]

Who cares if china a super power? If t the united states focuses more on defending it national borders instead placing its armed forces in other countries, then we should not worry about another nation invading and taken over our country. Whats wrong with just being a 2nd rate world power?

I don't think the "US imperialists" would settle for 2nd place... being 1st means you have the ability to control everyone else (in a sense). So clearly, (in their opinion at least) the rise of China is a "real threat" to that dominance in the longer term.