China as the new superpower

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
bbking said:
I agree with you OTB, but I have seen numbers at the World Bank that have expressed concern that during the 15 year growth cycle that the poverty rate has actually grown slightly. Hardly an indication of a developing middle class. To get the political change needed there needs to be some commitment to the lower classes, be it moving people out of poverty, increasing education and health care. In all three areas there is no movement. On the human rights front, again there is no commitment going forward from the Chinese leadership.

I am not bullish on China at all, and in fact see a rather nasty drop off economically in the next few years. I do think it would serve US interest to push China around economically to force a focus on human rights, poverty etc. because a China with healthy middle class and government based on democratic values would more than likely be a friend than a foe but left on their own, I really don't see China's leadership changing much and as such don't see the bright future some people see



bbk
China will go through (or is currently going through) a painful change from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing economy. The rich will get richer and there will be more of them and the poor will get poorer until the country becomes rich enough to invest in their advancement. To me the middle class is the key.

How can you keep 300m middle class people under control - you'd have to be willing to inflict an awful lot of violence to make that happen. Hong Kong is the test case, they will continue to blaze the trail for the Chinese middle class. I haven't been back to HK since the handover (was there that week though, very beautiful). Time to get some more Asian stamps in the passport.

OTB
 

islandboy

New member
Nov 14, 2004
227
0
0
With markets open to it and more and more of those cheap laborers become consumers, the transition may be painful to world leader will be painfull but it is happening. While there numbers are terrible, as they get the ineffciency out thay can better affford the most accurate figures to be published. A small percent of a huge amount of dollars is still huge.
 

islandboy

New member
Nov 14, 2004
227
0
0
These are not the real equations but huge is huge. If you are fifty times the size, have a 30 percent lower cost of production, but are 20 percent less efficient the numbers look like this.

When both sell their entire output and the price is not elastic.
Equal output of fifty units:
$10.00 item price for a total of 500.
China: $9 item price (10-3+1.4) for a total of 420.


When the item is elastic and/or there the market has twice the capacity it needs.

US - $0.00
China - $450.00

China will do very well unless it produces things the world does not want or its quality is so poor that no one will buy it. There will be variation, industry to industry but clearly not enough to keep it from dominating.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,821
5,407
113
onthebottom said:
Perhaps that should be the judge of a super power - who, not using nukes, can carry out operations or thwart another countries operations anywhere in the world.
Again, the glory of imperialism is intoxicating.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,821
5,407
113
BB, go and see an SP, you need it.

I will contribute $10 towards the donation; anybody else?
 

islandboy

New member
Nov 14, 2004
227
0
0
1) Brazil has the raw resources and is betting a lot of its future on supplying China.
2) China is selling into the World.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
danmand said:
Again, the glory of imperialism is intoxicating.
You French, British or Dutch?

OTB
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,821
5,407
113
BB, you don't debate anything. You just state the same opinion over and over again, without attempting to understand what the other party says. And calling people who disagree with you idiots are not debating either.

Go and see an SP and post a review. This is afterall an escort review board.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,821
5,407
113
onthebottom said:
You French, British or Dutch?
You think I am that civilized, thank you.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
danmand said:
You think I am that civilized, thank you.
Don't know that I know you well enough to come to that conclusion, you just seemed to have some first hand knowledge of imperialism.

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
DonQuixote said:
The Chinese are going through the growth curve as expected.
First the robber barons, then the progressives, then the economic
collapse of the system, then the emergence of the middle class,
then the hollowing out of the middle class, etc.

Certainly China has a chance of being a superpower.
But, I think that means they're going to be going through
a lot of internal change which has historically been a real
problem for them.

The individual Chinese is very independent-thinking.
They're going to have a lot of internal problems to keep them
very busy for a long, long time.
shakes head in disbelief

I agree with everything in this post.

OTB
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,821
5,407
113
onthebottom said:
Don't know that I know you well enough to come to that conclusion, you just seemed to have some first hand knowledge of imperialism.
Let us leave it this way, you might come to the opposite conclusion, if you knew me better.

All I know of imperialism, I know from history. What history tells us, or me in any event, is that all empires have their day in the sun, and then fades, and that even the strongest military power cannot forever suppress people who want to be independent.
 

islandboy

New member
Nov 14, 2004
227
0
0
China can compete in ANYTHING is wants to. Hi tech.... low tech, they can do it and will spend the money to do it - after first negotiating hard deals. No one is this hemisphere is postioned to stop them on the production side. There is a real edge in consumer preferences and innovation here, but that depends on the needs of the industry.

While chinese people brought up on other cultures excel, when brought up there independant thinking - unless you call the different, static, and closed political system they adhere to - is not a strong pint yet.

How can so many people not recognise that China is on its way to being one of the worlds economic superpower. Will you wait thirty years or so and be swept over because you did not plan now? Or will you made accomdations now, to extend the time you have and adjust to a new world.
 

islandboy

New member
Nov 14, 2004
227
0
0
DQ. Karl Marx made some great observations regarding social economic relationships but his view fails (ed) for many reasons. Two were 1) that the relationships are not always causally related as he thought, and 2) he did not understand how the needs of people relative to each other change.
 

islandboy

New member
Nov 14, 2004
227
0
0
More on Marx:

First, Marx believed that societies follow laws of motion simple and all-encompassing enough to make long-range prediction fruitful. Second, he believed that these laws are exclusively economic in character: what shapes society, the only thing that shapes society, is the “material forces of production�. Third, he believed that these laws must invariably express themselves, until the end of history, as a bitter struggle of class against class. Fourth, he believed that at the end of history, classes and the state (whose sole purpose is to represent the interests of the ruling class) must dissolve to yield a heaven on earth.

Marx was much more original in envisaging the awesome productive power of capitalism. He saw that capitalism would spur innovation to a hitherto-unimagined degree. He was right that giant corporations would come to dominate the world's industries (though not quite in the way he meant). He rightly underlined the importance of economic cycles (though his accounts of their causes and consequences were wrong).

The central paradox that Marx emphasised—namely, that its own colossal productivity would bring capitalism to its knees, by making socialism followed by communism both materially possible and logically necessary—turned out to be false. Still, Marx could fairly lay claim to having sensed more clearly than others how far capitalism would change the material conditions of the world. And this in turn reflects something else that demands at least a grudging respect: the amazing reach and ambition of his thinking.


On everything that mattered most to Marx himself, he was wrong

But the fact remains that on everything that mattered most to Marx himself, he was wrong. The real power he claimed for his system was predictive, and his main predictions are hopeless failures. Concerning the outlook for capitalism, one can always argue that he was wrong only in his timing: in the end, when capitalism has run its course, he will be proved right. Put in such a form, this argument, like many other apologies for Marx, has the advantage of being impossible to falsify. But that does not make it plausible. The trouble is, it leaves out class. This is a wise omission, because class is an idea which has become blurred to the point of meaninglessness. Class antagonism, though, is indispensable to the Marxist world-view. Without it, even if capitalism succumbs to stagnation or decline, the mechanism for its overthrow is missing.

Class war is the sine qua non of Marx. But the class war, if it ever existed, is over. In western democracies today, who chooses who rules, and for how long? Who tells governments how companies will be regulated? Who in the end owns the companies? Workers for hire—the proletariat. And this is because of, not despite, the things Marx most deplored: private property, liberal political rights and the market. Where it mattered most, Marx could not have been more wrong.
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
It's not a matter of infrastructure. Brazil is having brainfart after brainfart, having recently elected a comical fascist government. Brazil is the butt of jokes for those employed in the resources sector. They will crash and burn, in a spectacular manner, once the easily extractable deposits are gone, as they lack the technical edge and won't allow experts into their country.

bbking said:
Brazil lacks the infastructure and the ability to develope their resources on their own.
Very true. Notice these days, in Walmart and dollar stores, the emergence of cheap goods made of metal? As for moving up, that won't happen. They aren't innovative enough to do things like developing a cpu or building handmade amplifiers. I'll grant that if they were capable, they could absolutely smash europe economically.

China will only be able to sell low end products to world. Once they move up and that move threatens internal jobs of other countries, they will find that their price advantage will evaporate.
Very true. Same as with europe - US closes the door, economic devastation follows.

You can't create a world class economy without a strong internal market and China isn't doing that.
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..well we agree on Vietnam , more or less, however if the US 's intention was just to reverse the Norths invasion of the South why the Hell do you think they were up by the Chinese border ?

The retreat back down Korea was the longest retreat in US history, and the Americans came close to getting annihilated.

My point is in a real War, the will to win can over come alot, look at WW2, where the Germans in the early part of the War had every technical advantage and better training then the Russians.

As the Russians became aware of the atrocities the Germans were commiting they became fanatical.

Dont let all this talk about how superior American arms are over every bodys elses. In the end its the Grunts who decide the issue, the Grunts who are more fanatical.

Plus the political will on the home front. The US is biteing off more then it can chew.

Easy for a Preppy turd like Bush to commit his country to eternal War, none of his friends kids are going to have to fight in it.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,664
0
0
assoholic said:
..well we agree on Vietnam , more or less, however if the US 's intention was just to reverse the Norths invasion of the South why the Hell do you think they were up by the Chinese border ?

The retreat back down Korea was the longest retreat in US history, and the Americans came close to getting annihilated.

My point is in a real War, the will to win can over come alot, look at WW2, where the Germans in the early part of the War had every technical advantage and better training then the Russians.

As the Russians became aware of the atrocities the Germans were commiting they became fanatical.

Dont let all this talk about how superior American arms are over every bodys elses. In the end its the Grunts who decide the issue, the Grunts who are more fanatical.

Plus the political will on the home front. The US is biteing off more then it can chew.

Easy for a Preppy turd like Bush to commit his country to eternal War, none of his friends kids are going to have to fight in it.
Your analogies to WWII, and the conclusions you draw - that somehow, because the Russians became "fanatical" and therefore defeated a militarily superior opponent - are badly flawed.

However, the notion that *morale* is a huge, often decisive factor in military operations is quite accurate.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,664
0
0
I'm not sure if this is what you're saying, but the United States was in no position to "destroy" China on the battlefield, even without commitments in Europe.
 
Toronto Escorts