When will China take the Crown?

[Louis VI the Fat]

You have five more years to learn Mandarin.

Will China take the crown?

Angus Maddison's forecast (which uses purchasing power parity) isn't built on outlandish assumptions. He assumes China's growth will slow way down year by year, and America's will average about 2.6% annually, which seems reasonable. But because China has grown so stupendously during the past decade, it should still be able to take the crown in just seven more years.
If that happens, America will close out a 125-year run as the No. 1 economy. We assumed the title in 1890 from - guess who. Britain? France? No. The world's largest economy until 1890 was China's. That's why Maddison says he expects China to "resume its natural role as the world's largest economy by 2015." That scenario makes sense.



China was the largest economy for centuries because everyone had the same type of economy - subsistence - and so the country with the most people would be economically biggest. Then the Industrial Revolution sent the West on a more prosperous path. Now the world is returning to a common economy, this time technology- and information-based, so once again population triumphs.



http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/magazines/fortune/seven_years_learn_chinese.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008043005




For Americans, 2008 is an important election year. But for much of the world, it is likely to be seen as the year that China moved to center stage, with the Olympics serving as the country's long-awaited coming-out party. The much-heralded advent of China as a global power is no longer a forecast but a reality. On issue after issue, China has become the second most important country on the planet. Consider what's happened already this past year. In 2007 China contributed more to global growth than the United States, the first time another country had done so since at least the 1930s. It also became the world's largest consumer, eclipsing the United States in four of the five basic food, energy and industrial commodities. And a few months ago China surpassed the United States to become the world's leading emitter of CO2. Whether it's trade, global warming, Darfur or North Korea, China has become the new x factor, without which no durable solution is possible.
(http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/3946/3/0/%2a/w%3B221768102%3B0-0%3B1%3B32981463%3B34793-638/24%3B35202585/35220403/1%3Bu%3Do%2A_5bCS_5dv1_7c259362860515879E_2d600001756016B4E5_5bCE_5d%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttps://www.newsweekeurope.com/order/subscription.aspx)
And yet the Chinese do not quite see themselves this way. Susan Shirk, the author of a recent book about the country, "The Fragile Superpower," tells a revealing tale. Whenever she mentions her title in America, people say to her, "Fragile? China doesn't seem fragile." But in China people say, "Superpower? China isn't a superpower."


In fact it's both, and China's fragility is directly related to its extraordinary rise. Lawrence Summers has recently pointed out that during the Industrial Revolution the average European's living standards rose about 50 percent over the course of his lifetime (then about 40 years). In Asia, principally China, he calculates, the average person's living standards are set to rise by 10,000 percent in one lifetime! The scale and pace of growth in China has been staggering, utterly unprecedented in history—and it has produced equally staggering change. In two decades China has experienced the same degree of industrialization, urbanization and social transformation as Europe did in two centuries.
Recall what China looked like only 30 years ago. It was a devastated country, one of the world's poorest, with a totalitarian state. It was just emerging from Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, which had destroyed universities, schools and factories, all to revitalize the revolution. Since then 400 million people have been lifted out of poverty in China—about 75 percent of the world's total poverty reduction over the last century. The country has built new cities and towns, roads and ports, and is planning for the future in impressive detail.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/81588

We are witnesses to one of the biggest events in world history. The full scale of the rise of China ecplises anything that the world has ever seen before. Never have so many people, in such a short amount of time, made so much progress as China has in three decades.

For effect, both artocles above are two years old. Since then, the West has seen its financial system collapse, saved by the biggest loans in the history of mankind. China has been going from strenght to strenght. As have many other emerging economies.

Power has definately shifted from the West to a multipolar world. A decade that began with neo-conservative dreams of using America's unrivalled hegemony to assert and prolong this hegemony, will end up in the history books as the one that saw the definitive end of Western hegemony. Economically and politically. Unfortunately morally too, but not quite culturally.

For once, it is worth stating the obvious: China alone has twice the inhabitants of the EU and the US combined. This will have far-reaching consequences, not all of whom have fully sunk in.
Ninety percent of the world's population does not live in Western countries, and they have awoken.

[Hax]

Soon. Very soon.

And people are still surprised I'm going to study Sinology.

[KukriKhan]

'15 is do-able. Peking demands cash (in Euro's) for the US Bonds they hold, America can't pay, and defaults for the first (and last) time in it's history; leading to a run on the Fed, who has no backup like a regular bank, making the dollar worth less than the 7 cents it costs to print it. The Pension plans and Mutual Funds get 10 cents on the dollar for the Treasuries they hold, and 70-year olds go back to work for companies owned by the PRC People's Army, making crap product to sell to Africans.

And never a shot fired.

[Subotan]

Even if China did surpass the USA as the world's largest economy, it would need to achieve the past 20 years of growth all over again, not once, twice or even three times, but four times to gain comparative per capita income with the United States, and by that time the USA will have grown some more, making the task even harder.

Don't get me wrong, I think what China has experienced is the closest we'll ever come to witnessing a modern day miracle. Considering that consistently, since 1840, China had been repeatedly screwed over by the West, turning it into a nation of heroin addicts, stunting it's population and economic growth (China's population remained at about 400 million from 1800 until the Communist Revolution), and generally just treating it and the Chinese people like ****. For China to have not only shaken off the West, but to have achieved so much, so fast is incredible, and worthy of praise.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Remember how notoriously inaccurate such predictions are. Remember how they screamed that Japan will eclipse the US economy in the 80s. Take into account the similarities between Japan and China. Compare how the things said about Chinese economy now are nearly identical to the statements made about Japan thirty-twenty years ago. Take note of the real estate and stock bubble, that killed Japan, and the worries of the massive Chinese gov't spending which is feared to lead to another bubble.

Now, China could very well avoid the fate of Japan, and it is very unlikely it will fall like that. But still, an export-driven economy is a dangerous thing, as the days of mercantilism have long passed and it is recognised that a balanced economy is superior to the China/Russia/Germany -esque export economies.

Then again, with China's population, it is difficult to imagine any other fate for such a nation... Either a total collapse, or magnificent dominance. In any case, such Louis-esque enthusiastic rhetorical flourish on a certain subject is always to be taken with a grain of salt, no matter how eloquently it is presented, such as in this case.

[Mete Han]

Nevertheless, the future will be multipolared, and don't forget India, they share the same advantages with China, very cheap labor force and no worker rights...

[Meneldil]

Hopefully after my death.

[Samurai Waki]

I'm hoping those Glaciers in the Himalayas melt first... if China really wants to take the stage they're going to have to make sweeping reforms in the actual liberty of it's populace.

[Subotan]

Remember how notoriously inaccurate such predictions are. Remember how they screamed that Japan will eclipse the US economy in the 80s. Take into account the similarities between Japan and China. Compare how the things said about Chinese economy now are nearly identical to the statements made about Japan thirty-twenty years ago. Take note of the real estate and stock bubble, that killed Japan, and the worries of the massive Chinese gov't spending which is feared to lead to another bubble.

China has way more capacity for expansion than Japan did in 1990. A lot of the current growth is, yes, government driven, but a lot of it is being spent on infrastructure and investment that China has needed for years, for example, China's health system is notoriously bad. There are also a lot of non-urbanised peasants in China that have yet to become cogs in the Cathay Engine.

That said, there are problems. People tend to be happy with authoritarian regimes so long as life is good (See: 1930's Nazi Germany). If the economy did take a hike for some reason, such as a war between Taiwan and China causing a massive international backlash, then there is possibility for political change.

I know that AP will have read this, but everyone else should find it an interesting read.


http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=478048&story_id=15270708

CHINA rebounded more swiftly from the global downturn than any other big economy, thanks largely to its enormous monetary and fiscal stimulus. In the year to the fourth quarter of 2009, its real GDP is estimated to have grown by more than 10%. But many sceptics claim that its recovery is built on wobbly foundations. Indeed, they say, China now looks ominously like Japan in the late 1980s before its bubble burst and two lost decades of sluggish growth began. Worse, were China to falter now, while the recovery in rich countries is still fragile, it would be a severe blow not just at home but to the whole of the world economy.
On the face of it, the similarities between China today and bubble-era Japan are worrying. Extraordinarily high saving and an undervalued exchange rate have fuelled rapid export-led growth and the world’s biggest current-account surplus. Chronic overinvestment has, it is argued, resulted in vast excess capacity and falling returns on capital. A flood of bank lending threatens a future surge in bad loans, while markets for shares and property look dangerously frothy.
Just as in the late 1980s, when Japan’s economy was tipped to overtake America’s, China’s strong rebound has led many to proclaim that it will become number one sooner than expected. In contrast, a recent flurry of bearish reports warn that China’s economy could soon implode. James Chanos, a hedge-fund investor (and one of the first analysts to spot that Enron’s profits were pure fiction), says that China is “Dubai times 1,000, or worse”. Another hedge fund, Pivot Capital Management, argues that the chances of a hard landing, with a slump in capital spending and a banking crisis, are increasing.
Scary stuff. However, a close inspection of pessimists’ three main concerns—overvalued asset prices, overinvestment and excessive bank lending—suggests that China’s economy is more robust than they think. Start with asset markets. Chinese share prices are nowhere near as giddy as Japan’s were in the late 1980s. In 1989 Tokyo’s stockmarket had a price-earnings ratio of almost 70; today’s figure for Shanghai A shares is 28, well below its long-run average of 37. Granted, prices jumped by 80% last year, but markets in other large emerging economies went up even more: Brazil, India and Russia rose by an average of 120% in dollar terms. And Chinese profits have rebounded faster than those elsewhere. In the three months to November, industrial profits were 70% higher than a year before.
China’s property market is certainly hot. Prices of new apartments in Beijing and Shanghai leapt by 50-60% during 2009. Some lavish projects have much in common with those in Dubai—notably “The World”, a luxury development in Tianjin, 120km (75 miles) from Beijing, in which homes will be arranged as a map of the world, along with the world’s biggest indoor ski slope and a seven-star hotel.


Average home prices nationally, however, cannot yet be called a bubble. On January 14th the National Development and Reform Commission reported that average prices in 70 cities had climbed by 8% in the year to December, the fastest pace for 18 months; other measures suggest a bigger rise. But this followed a fall in prices in 2008. By most measures average prices have fallen relative to incomes in the past decade (see chart 1).
The most cited evidence of a bubble—and hence of impending collapse—is the ratio of average home prices to average annual household incomes. This is almost ten in China; in most developed economies it is only four or five. However, Tao Wang, an economist at UBS, argues that this rich-world yardstick is misleading. Chinese homebuyers do not have average incomes but come largely from the richest 20-30% of the urban population. Using this group’s average income, the ratio falls to rich-world levels. In Japan the price-income ratio hit 18 in 1990, obliging some buyers to take out 100-year mortgages.
Furthermore, Chinese homes carry much less debt than Japanese properties did 20 years ago. One-quarter of Chinese buyers pay cash. The average mortgage covers only about half of a property’s value. Owner-occupiers must make a minimum deposit of 20%, investors one of 40%. Chinese households’ total debt stands at only 35% of their disposable income, compared with 130% in Japan in 1990.
China’s property boom is being financed mainly by saving, not bank lending. According to Yan Wang, an economist at BCA Research, a Canadian firm, only about one-fifth of the cost of new construction (commercial and residential) is financed by bank lending. Loans to homebuyers and property developers account for only 17% of Chinese banks’ total, against 56% for American banks. A bubble pumped up by saving is much less dangerous than one fuelled by credit. When the market begins to crack, highly leveraged speculators are forced to sell, pushing prices lower, which causes more borrowers to default.
Even if China does not (yet) have a credit-fuelled housing bubble, the fact that property prices in Beijing and Shanghai are beyond the reach of most ordinary people is a serious social problem. The government has not kept its promise to build more low-cost housing, and it is clearly worried about rising prices. In an attempt to thwart speculators, it has reimposed a sales tax on homes sold within five years, has tightened the stricter rules on mortgages for investment properties and is trying to crack down on illegal flows of foreign capital into the property market. The government does not want to come down too hard, as it did in 2007 by cutting off credit, because it needs a lively property sector to support economic recovery. But if it does not tighten policy soon, a full-blown bubble is likely to inflate.
The world’s capital

China’s second apparent point of similarity to Japan is overinvestment. Total fixed investment jumped to an estimated 47% of GDP last year—ten points more than in Japan at its peak. Chinese investment is certainly high: in most developed countries it accounts for around 20% of GDP. But you cannot infer waste from a high investment ratio alone. It is hard to argue that China has added too much to its capital stock when, per person, it has only about 5% of what America or Japan has. China does have excess capacity in some industries, such as steel and cement. But across the economy as a whole, concerns about overinvestment tend to be exaggerated.
Pivot Capital Management points to China’s incremental capital-output ratio (ICOR), which is calculated as annual investment divided by the annual increase in GDP, as evidence of the collapsing efficiency of investment. Pivot argues that in 2009 China’s ICOR was more than double its average in the 1980s and 1990s, implying that it required much more investment to generate an additional unit of output. However, it is misleading to look at the ICOR for a single year. With slower GDP growth, because of a collapse in global demand, the ICOR rose sharply everywhere. The return to investment in terms of growth over a longer period is more informative. Measuring this way, BCA Research finds no significant increase in China’s ICOR over the past three decades.
Mr Chanos has drawn parallels between China and the huge misallocation of resources in the Soviet Union, arguing that China is heading the same way. The best measure of efficiency is total factor productivity (TFP), the increase in output not directly accounted for by extra inputs of capital and labour. If China were as wasteful as Mr Chanos contends, its TFP growth would be negative, as the Soviet Union’s was. Yet over the past two decades China has enjoyed the fastest growth in TFP of any country in the world.
Even in industries which clearly do have excess capacity, China’s critics overstate their case. A recent report by the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China estimates that in early 2009 the steel industry was operating at only 72% of capacity. That was at the depth of the global downturn. Demand has picked up strongly since then. The report claims that the industry’s overcapacity is illustrated by “a startling figure”: in 2008, China’s output of steel per person was higher than America’s. So what? At China’s stage of industrialisation it should use a lot of steel. A more relevant yardstick is the America of the early 20th century. According to Ms Wang of UBS, China’s steel capacity of almost 0.5 tonnes per person is slightly lower than America’s output in 1920 (0.6 tonnes) and far below Japan’s peak of 1.1 tonnes in 1973.


Many commentators complain that China’s capital-spending spree last year has merely exacerbated its industrial overcapacity. However, the boom was driven mainly by infrastructure investment, whereas investment in manufacturing slowed quite sharply (see chart 2). Given the scale of the spending, some money is sure to have been wasted, but by and large, investment in roads, railways and the electricity grid will help China sustain its growth in the years ahead.
Some analysts disagree. Pivot, for instance, argues that China’s infrastructure has already reached an advanced level. It has six of the world’s ten longest bridges and it boasts the world’s fastest train; there is little room for further productive investment. That is nonsense. A country in which two-fifths of villages lack a paved road to the nearest market town still has plenty of scope for building roads. The same goes for railways. Again, a comparison of China today with the America of a century ago is pertinent. China has roughly the same land area as America, but 13 times more people than the United States did then. Yet on current plans it will have only 110,000km of railway by 2012, compared with more than 400,000km in America in 1916. Unlike Japan, which built “bridges to nowhere” to prop up its economy, China needs better infrastructure.
It is true that in the short term, the revenue from some infrastructure projects may not be enough to service debts, so the government will have to cover losses. But in the long term such projects should lift productivity across the economy. During Britain’s railway mania in the mid-19th century, few railways made a decent financial return, but they brought huge long-term economic benefits.
The biggest cause for worry about China is the third point of similarity to Japan: the recent tidal wave of bank lending. Total credit jumped by more than 30% last year. Even assuming that this slows to less than 20% this year, as the government has hinted, total credit outstanding could hit 135% of GDP by December. The authorities are perturbed. This week they increased banks’ reserve requirement ratio by half a percentage point. They have also raised the yield on central-bank bills.

However, too many commentators talk as if Chinese banks have been on a lending binge for years. Instead, the spurt in 2009, which was engineered by the government to revive the economy, followed several years in which credit grew more slowly than GDP (see chart 3). Michael Buchanan, of Goldman Sachs, estimates that since 2004 China’s excess credit (the gap between the growth rates of credit and nominal GDP) has risen by less than in most developed economies.
Even so, recent lending has been excessive; combined with overcapacity in some industries, it is likely to cause an increase in banks’ non-performing loans. Ms Wang calculates that if 20% of all new lending last year and another 10% of this year’s lending turned bad, this would create new bad loans equivalent to 5.5% of GDP by 2012, on top of 2% now. That is far from trivial, but well below the 40% of GDP that bad loans amounted to in the late 1990s.
Much of the past year’s bank lending should really be viewed as a form of fiscal stimulus. Infrastructure projects that have little hope of repaying loans will end up back on the government’s books. It would have been much better if such projects had been financed more transparently through the government’s budget, but the important question is whether the state can afford to cover the losses.
Official gross government debt is less than 20% of GDP, but China bears argue that this is an understatement, because it excludes local-government debt and the bonds issued by the asset-management companies that took over banks’ previous non-performing loans. Total government debt could be 50% of GDP. But that is well below the average ratio in rich countries, of around 90%. Moreover, the Chinese government owns lots of assets, for example shares of listed companies which are worth 35% of GDP.
Yin and yang

Even if, as argued above, concerns about a financial crash in China are premature, the risks of a dangerous bubble and excessive investment will clearly increase if credit continues to expand at its recent pace. The stitching on the Chinese economy could fray and burst. Would that imply the end of China’s era of rapid growth?
Predictions that China is heading for a prolonged Japanese-style slump ignore big differences between China today and Japan in the late 1980s. Japan was already a mature, developed economy, with a GDP per person close to that of America. China is still a poor, developing country, whose GDP per person is less than one-tenth of America’s or Japan’s. It has ample room to play catch-up with rich economies by adding to its capital stock, importing foreign technology and boosting productivity by shifting labour from farms to factories. This would make it easier for China to recover from the bursting of a bubble.

Chart 4 examines the relationship between growth rates and income per head for six Asian economies. Each plot shows a country’s growth rate and GDP per person relative to America’s for successive ten-year periods, starting when their rapid growth took off. It illustrates how growth rates slow as economies catch up with America, the technological leader. The fact that China’s GDP per head is much lower than Japan’s in the 1980s suggests that its growth potential over the next decade is much higher. Even though China’s labour force will start shrinking after 2016, rapid productivity gains mean that its trend GDP growth rate is still around 8%, down from 10% in the past decade.
Japan’s stockmarket and land-price bubbles in the early 1960s offer a better (and more cheerful) analogy to China than the 1980s bubble era does. Japan’s economy was poorer then, although relative to America its GDP per person was more than double China’s today, and its trend rate of growth was around 9%. According to HSBC, after the bubble burst in 1962-65, Japan’s annual growth rate dipped to just under 6%, but then quickly rebounded to 10% for much of the next decade.
South Korea and Taiwan, which experienced big stockmarket bubbles in the 1980s, are also worth examining. In the five years to 1990, Taipei’s stockmarket surged by 1,600% (in dollar terms) and Seoul’s by 700%, easily beating Tokyo’s 450% gain in the same period. After share prices slumped, annual growth in both South Korea and Taiwan slowed to around 6%, but soon regained its previous pace of 7-8%.
The higher a country’s potential growth rate, the easier it is for the economy to recover after a bubble bursts, so long as its fiscal and external finances are in reasonable shape. Rapid growth in nominal GDP means that asset prices do not need to fall so far to regain fair value, bad loans are easier to work off and excess capacity can be more quickly absorbed by rising demand. The experience of Japan in the 1960s suggests that if China’s bubble bursts, it will hurt growth temporarily but not lead to prolonged stagnation.
However, it is Japan’s experience after the 1980s that most influences the thinking of policymakers in Beijing. Many blame Japan’s deflation and its lost decades of growth on the fact that its government caved in to American demands for an appreciation of the yen. In 1985 central banks in the big rich economies agreed, in the Plaza Accord, to intervene to push down the dollar. By 1988 the yen had risen by more than 100% against the greenback. One reason why policymakers in Beijing have resisted a big rise in the yuan is that they fear it could send their economy, like Japan’s, into a deflationary slump.
The wrong lesson


Yet Japan’s real mistake was not that it allowed the yen to rise, but that it had previously resisted an appreciation for too long, so that when it did happen the yen soared. A second error was that Japan tried to offset the adverse economic effects of a strong yen with over-lax monetary policy. If policy had been tighter, the financial bubble would have been smaller and its aftermath less painful.
This offers two important lessons to China. First, it is better to let the exchange rate rise sooner and more gradually than to risk a much sharper appreciation later. Second, monetary policy should not be too slack. Raising reserve requirements is a small step in the right direction. Despite the bears’ growling, China’s economic collapse is neither imminent nor inevitable. But if it continues to draw the wrong lesson from the tale of Japan, then one day its economy may look just as tatty.


I've bolded the relevant bits, as I know you're all lazy

[Tellos Athenaios]

China as biggest economy? Quite possible. Not by 2015 I'd say, unless USA/EU take another massive hit in that time span. But weirder things have happened. Like a car company being, globally, the single biggest hedge fund for a day.

But even then the language of the world isn't going to move away from English. Au contraire: China and the rest of Asia are moving towards the norm of being bilingual with English as secondary language (lingua franca). English is easy to come to grips with, presents access to a global market from USA, to Europe, to Japan.

[The Wizard]

We are witnesses to one of the biggest events in world history. The full scale of the rise of China ecplises anything that the world has ever seen before. Never have so many people, in such a short amount of time, made so much progress as China has in three decades.

For effect, both artocles above are two years old. Since then, the West has seen its financial system collapse, saved by the biggest loans in the history of mankind. China has been going from strenght to strenght. As have many other emerging economies.

Power has definately shifted from the West to a multipolar world. A decade that began with neo-conservative dreams of using America's unrivalled hegemony to assert and prolong this hegemony, will end up in the history books as the one that saw the definitive end of Western hegemony. Economically and politically. Unfortunately morally too, but not quite culturally.

For once, it is worth stating the obvious: China alone has twice the inhabitants of the EU and the US combined. This will have far-reaching consequences, not all of whom have fully sunk in.
Ninety percent of the world's population does not live in Western countries, and they have awoken.

:coffeenews:

Yawn. Growth looks cool in the newspaper but China has an immense gap to overcome. China's economy currently is something like a third the size of the U.S.'s (i.e. even less relative to the EU). Given its current growth, it'll achieve economic parity with the United States somewhere in the 2020s. Parity in productivity, military power, technological prowess and cultural importance will be things the Chinese will have to wait on even longer. Neoconservative dreams were unrealistic to begin with (American hegemony was already gone by the time they gained power). Western nations together, meanwhile, still account for more than 40% of world economic output and 95% of defense spending. Chinese economic growth is dependent on Western desire for consumption (scenarios like KukriKhan's are about as likely as the sky falling on our heads), and is fueled for a very sizeable part by Western investment. I might also add we've heard all of this before (the Soviet Union, Japan... hey, where'd they go?).

None of this takes away the fact of rapid Chinese growth (or that of other "Third World" countries). And none of this takes away the fact that, in time, these nations will truly be able to surpass us. But that is a whole lot further away than next year. In addition, far from it being unprecented, once (and still: if) China becomes the largest economy (alongside India, I surmise, something the OP seems to forget), it will merely be restoring the way the world was before the West underwent the Industrial Revolution, and the world's greatest economies resided in South and East Asia.

We aren't gone, people. Far from it. Politically and economically our influence and our power may be declining, yes, but they do so relative to the rest of the world. And that part of the world has so very far to go before they've caught up with us. I'll give it until 2030 before the U.S. has to face meaningful challenges to its position as top baboon on the rock. A rock that the Western monkeys have been ruling for more or less 250 years...

P.S. "Will end" ...? The 21st century's first decade ended almost three months ago...

[KukriKhan]

Ninety percent of the world's population does not live in Western countries, and they have awoken.

Ninety is high by about 35%, non?


...scenarios like KukriKhan's are about as likely as the sky falling on our heads

Yes, I was exploring whether it could happen, not that it shall. The sky does occasionally fall on our heads; that said: to quickly switch from western to eastern dominance in the world would require about a dozen factors going wrong for the West, whilst simultaneously those dozen factors all broke favorably for the East. Statistically unlikely... but not impossible.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Depends how you define West. How do you define it?

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is why our integration into a strong economic relationship with the EU and India while passively undermining China is so important.

[Aemilius Paulus]

This is why our integration into a strong economic relationship with the EU and India while passively undermining China is so important.
Yeah, 'cause one Cold War is not enough - the Yanks gotta start a new one :laugh4::laugh4::tongue:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Remember how notoriously inaccurate such predictions are. Remember how they screamed that Japan will eclipse the US economy in the 80s. Take into account the similarities between Japan and China. Compare how the things said about Chinese economy now are nearly identical to the statements made about Japan thirty-twenty years ago. Take note of the real estate and stock bubble, that killed Japan, and the worries of the massive Chinese gov't spending which is feared to lead to another bubble. And in 1840, Alexis de Tocqueville made the prediction that the 20th century would see Russia and the US as the two rivalling superpowers.

Some predictions are 'more equal' than equal predictions.

Japan isn't dead. It is alive and kicking, rivalled in living standards by only the best of the west. It merely experienced slumbering growth.
China is also not Japan. Most strikingly, it is ten times its size. Most emerging nations have emerged as part of an existing system. Just how a country that is larger than all other traditional industrialised nations combined can be incorporated within such a system is still a big question. Who will be incorporated into whom? Other emerging markets are only further complicating this question.

As for India - it will grow, but I have less faith in it than in China.

https://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9437/chongqing2008.png

Chongqing. Most people will have never heard of it. It is a provincial town. It is three times the size of Paris.



This is why our integration into a strong economic relationship with the EU and India while passively undermining China is so important. I wouldn't be surpised if within our lifetime quarrels between democracies will be looked at with bittersweet nostalgia to a time when we could all afford such luxury.




P.S. "Will end" ...? The 21st century's first decade ended almost three months ago... Look, I don't know what kind of dimwits you are accustomed to, but I am getting a bit tired of your constantly adressing me as if I'm one too. Read:


A decade that began with neo-conservative dreams of using America's unrivalled hegemony to assert and prolong this hegemony, will end up in the history books as the one that saw the definitive end of Western hegemony.

[CrossLOPER]

2015 seems too optimistic.

[spmetla]

I'd say too pessimistic from my American perspective :P

[Furunculus]

Hopefully after my death.

agreed.

i voted 2050 because while they will eventually hit top-dog status it will never be as clear-cut or as commanding as that enjoyed by Britain or the US due to the contradicitions of its own demographics.

http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/globalization/when-china-is-no-1

[Boohugh]

I voted Gah (although not for Texas!) as I don't think anyone will emerge as a new hegemon anytime soon (and by soon I mean at least 50-100 years). The world has slowly been shifting to a multipolar one and I believe this trend will continue for the foreseeable future. Economically, the USA, EU, China and India will emerge as competing powers with nobody taking a commanding lead (I think the world has become too globalised for anyone to pull too far ahead, it would start to unbalance things and market forces would pull it back down). Politically, it's harder to call though; I think the USA will continue to try and lead things, although it is and will continue to be forced to cooperate with the EU or China to achieve it's aims, the EU could become a serious political force on the world stage if it got it's act together, but in-fighting will probably prevent this happening and China is starting to flex it's muscles but it will take time for it to learn what it wants/is able to do without overstepping it's bounds.

[Mikeus Caesar]

It's possible, but there are a lot of other factors that get in the way of China's potential superiority. For starters, the massive problem of an ageing population, the melting glaciers in the Himalayas, a crazy high imbalance between the male and female population....i'm quite sure there are other problems that i forget.

And to be quite honest, the rise of China scares me. A huge, fascist monolith where no one cares about you or your problems, and just the pursuit of profit.

[Jolt]

万岁中国！中国是世界的中心！
(Lit. Translation: 10000 years China! China is World's center! / Translation: Long live China! China is the center of the world!)

Learning Mandarin rocks. Not only do I know the language of the collapsing hegemon, but I'm beginning to know the language of the forthcoming hegemon. And it shall be of great use in my career, I bet.

[The Wizard]

And in 1840, Alexis de Toqueville made the prediction that the 20th century would see Russia and the US as the two rivalling superpowers.

Some predictions are 'more equal' than equal predictions.

A prediction made under influence of the horribly incorrect theory that big countries naturally get into conflict with each other. De Tocqueville's prediction is basically a lucky guess, which I might add came true due to completely unrelated factors.


Chongqing. Most people will have never heard of it. It is a provincial town. It is three times the size of Paris.

That's mostly because it's also geographically three times the size of Paris. The city itself, with a population of 5 million, is, while large, smaller than Paris. Anyhow, it's also the most important industrial area in China's hinterland, not just some random "provincial town".


Look, I don't know what kind of dimwits you are accustomed to, but I am getting a bit tired of your constantly adressing me as if I'm one too.

Whoa, slow down, sparky. I was merely inquisitive (and failed at communicating that, apparently). Must have misread, my bad

(As an aside, even then it'd be incorrect, seeing as American hegemony had ended long before Bush's election)

[Strike For The South]

Chinas demographic problems will be there own undoing.

Which is unfortunate considering they did it to themselves.

India is the perfect storm of raw potential and a youth base ready to go.

[gaelic cowboy]

I believe that China will never achieve the sort of hegemony this thread purports it will get.

1 China is pretty much demographically destined to become old before it gets the chance to be rich.

2 China has historically had problems with the poverty of its interior versus the coastal areas the usual cure is equalization of the wealth.

3 China is in the middle of a massive bubble that will pop we in the west are not buying stuff yet investment in property is booming.

4 China uses cheap labor to produce consumer goods and uses the money to support western consumption very little is used to improve social conditions and even less of it is used in the interior in order to ensure a ready cheap workforce.

Basically big numbers look cool but the average is key and china only has a good one due to the numbers involved the reality is crushing poverty.

India will suceed in the longterm because it is democratic and increasing.

[Subotan]

Chongqing. Most people will have never heard of it. It is a provincial town. It is three times the size of Paris. That analogy would be appropriate if Paris was the size of the Czech Republic. Most of Chongqing's muncipal area is rural, and very fertile land.


I believe that China will never achieve the sort of hegemony this thread purports it will get.

1 China is pretty much demographically destined to become old before it gets the chance to be rich.

2 China has historically had problems with the poverty of its interior versus the coastal areas the usual cure is equalization of the wealth.
Very good points.



3 China is in the middle of a massive bubble that will pop we in the west are not buying stuff yet investment in property is booming.

4 China uses cheap labor to produce consumer goods and uses the money to support western consumption very little is used to improve social conditions and even less of it is used in the interior in order to ensure a ready cheap workforce.
These are not so much. My article from the Economist explained why No. 3 is a minor concern. And half of China's population live in the countryside. There is no need to improve social conditions, much the same as why America in the 1910's didn't bother improving conditions for their limitless supply of immigrants.


India will suceed in the longterm because it is democratic and increasing.
That might be what brings it to it's knees. India's population growth will only slow with female education, which is lacking. But I do agree that India may still ultimately be more successful.

Personally, I like Brazil. Democratic, booming economy, nice population growth rate. Brazil ticks all the boxes.

[gaelic cowboy]

4 China uses cheap labor to produce consumer goods and uses the money to support western consumption very little is used to improve social conditions and even less of it is used in the interior in order to ensure a ready cheap workforce.


These are not so much. My article from the Economist explained why No. 3 is a minor concern. And half of China's population live in the countryside. There is no need to improve social conditions, much the same as why America in the 1910's didn't bother improving conditions for their limitless supply of immigrants.


That might be what brings it to it's knees. India's population growth will only slow with female education, which is lacking. But I do agree that India may still ultimately be more successful.

Personally, I like Brazil. Democratic, booming economy, nice population growth rate. Brazil ticks all the boxes.

My fault in trying to be too succint in a really complex statement. In 1910 america still had plenty room for expansion in both agricultural and industrial goods basically the goodies were not all taken already by the nobility in China thats is not the case the readies are gone but at least they have rubbishy low wage jobs.

The thing is if china continues to support western consumption instead of spending it on its own people it will cause social problems once they try to head this off they have two choices spend on there own people and endanger the low wage jobs or crackdown and equalize the wealth.

And on female education in India you forgot that female participation in the workforce is what drives an economy through the roof just think double income families in a nation of billion plus.

[Tellos Athenaios]

One point that I do not see mentioned is that with increased wealth and increase numbers of Chinese able to afford luxury items, the Chinese economy is best equipped to serve another billion or so customers. China itself can be a very lucrative market for the Chinese economy as it is, there is relatively little change needed then.

The key will be whether or not the Chinese state can guarantee some basic social security items chief among which is a steady food supply. Chinese people are not just consuming more food than ever, but they have been wasting the best part of their country for over half a century -- as a result of which Beijing is now familiar with dust bowls simply because the fertile banks of the yellow river have been stripped from the vegetation that keeps the fertile soil from eroding away. And there will be a very real issue should the Chinese find that they must import all their food because their farmers have become office employees.

[Furunculus]

India is the perfect storm of raw potential and a youth base ready to go.

not as long as it remains democratic, which sadly makes it a more appealing candidate for hegemony, but that same democracy can never bring about the speed of growth achieved by a authoritarian chine. india will narrow the gap with china in the long-term, but that will be because of a better demographic make-up not because of democracy in the short or mid-term:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/4841208/Can_India_ever_catch_up_with_China/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/deannelson/100001775/india-cannot-bridge-the-gap-with-china/

[Kagemusha]

Are we talking economically or about global dominance? Economically speaking i would say it pretty much depends whether EU will continue expanding while maintaining stability. If we are talking about global dominance. Id say that i dont believe any state will achieve hegemony during this century, but world will have atleast three major global powers including EU, US and China.

[Sarmatian]

Aging population is also a problem of the west, partially offset by constant immigration. We're not very far from the moment when retirement age is gonna be 70 in practically all western countries.

Pushing such reforms is gonna be even easier for China as it is not democratic. As its economy improves more, it will become more interesting to immigrants. Also, income per capita increased and is gonna keep increasing in China, making its internal market capable of consuming more goods. Technological gap is lessening, just think where China was 40 years ago compared to the West technologically and where it is now. China will bridge the technological gap in a few decades and I expect it will be the world's technological leader in the second part of the century. There's simply nothing to stop them. Wishful thinking how they "have internal problems", "aging population", "technological inferiority" etc... will be thrown out of the window...

[Kagemusha]

Aging population is also a problem of the west, partially offset by constant immigration. We're not very far from the moment when retirement age is gonna be 70 in practically all western countries.

Pushing such reforms is gonna be even easier for China as it is not democratic. As its economy improves more, it will become more interesting to immigrants. Also, income per capita increased and is gonna keep increasing in China, making its internal market capable of consuming more goods. Technological gap is lessening, just think where China was 40 years ago compared to the West technologically and where it is now. China will bridge the technological gap in a few decades and I expect it will be the world's technological leader in the second part of the century. There's simply nothing to stop them. Wishful thinking how they "have internal problems", "aging population", "technological inferiority" etc... will be thrown out of the window...

I agree in all those points, but it should be noted also that there are destabilizing effects there. As China´s populations average income increases and their quality of life becomes better. It is inevitable that the population will start demanding more individual rights and democrazy, thus China cant shut herself from the rest of the world when it comes to influences, while at the same time they are opening themselves up for the global market, which gives them prosperity.

[Sarmatian]

I agree in all those points, but it should be noted also that there are destabilizing effects there. As China´s populations average income increases and their quality of life becomes better. It is inevitable that the population will start demanding more individual rights and democrazy, thus China cant shut herself from the rest of the world when it comes to influences, while at the same time they are opening themselves up for the global market, which gives them prosperity.

Quite right, which is a good thing, IMO. Slowly, the creation of a strong middle class will force China to democratise from the inside, but I don't think it's gonna cause some great upheavals some have been dreaming of. Compare individual rights in China 40 years ago and now - huge improvement, and yet there was no great revolutions in between, China keeps picking up the pace, not slowing down. China is an incredibly stable country, more than 90% are ethnic Han. Yes, it's true that a 1% minority ethnic group in China is bigger than population of about half of European countries but percentage-wise, it's a drop in the ocean.

The only thing that may actually slow down China is lack of energy and mineral resources.

[Kagemusha]

Quite right, which is a good thing, IMO. Slowly, the creation of a strong middle class will force China to democratise from the inside, but I don't think it's gonna cause some great upheavals some have been dreaming of. Compare individual rights in China 40 years ago and now - huge improvement, and yet there was no great revolutions in between, China keeps picking up the pace, not slowing down. China is an incredibly stable country, more than 90% are ethnic Han. Yes, it's true that a 1% minority ethnic group in China is bigger than population of about half of European countries but percentage-wise, it's a drop in the ocean.

The only thing that may actually slow down China is lack of energy and mineral resources.

I agree completely. I am not myself one of those people who think that what lies ahead is reign of terror of China. I think that during majority of human Civilization China has beeen a top "dog" or atleast among the most powerful nations of the planet. To me the economical and power shift we are witnessing is basically just getting back to normal situation after long downwards spiral of China. I am not an fortune teller, so i cant say if the democratic development in China will be a peaceful or not, but i am quite sure that its a development that Chinese government cant stop. And if they do it wont bring anything good for them in the long run, but more likely it would just ruin the development we are witnessing.

[JAG]

2015 - and it is a great thing, the sooner the better.

[Furunculus]

2015 - and it is a great thing, the sooner the better.

two questions:

1) how do you think this could happen?

2) why do you want it to happen?

[Meneldil]

Heh, when I started using this forum, I used to agree with JAG on most issues.

Nowadays, most of the time, when he dares to post here (which doesn't happen often enough), I usually end up being all "wtf?"-ed. Maybe I'm starting to lean on the right while aging :-(

[Furunculus]

Heh, when I started using this forum, I used to agree with JAG on most issues.

Nowadays, most of the time, when he dares to post here (which doesn't happen often enough), I usually end up being all "wtf?"-ed. Maybe I'm starting to lean on the right while aging :-(
don't worry, it's a well documented phenomenom, it's only the freaks like me that start out on the right.

[JAG]

two questions:

1) how do you think this could happen?

2) why do you want it to happen?

Gah, better actually give a proper opinion then.

Let us not kid ourselves, we are already whitnessing the end of US hegemony and the progress towards a twin superpower world order. It is not simply down to the economy, I have not read all the posts above this one, but I am sure you have some to the conclusion that though China's rate of economic growth will slow, they will continue to grow at an extremely good rate none the less, especially when comparing it to the rest of the developed world. Just as they showed their economic strength in being the first to come out of the world recession and grow again - at a considerable rate to boot! - they will continue to flex their economic muscle and unlike other emerging economies - Brazil and India spring to mind - because they dont have the 'moral compass' of a democracy, the growth will march onwards, ever onwards.

But as I said it is not simply economically that the emerging world order of the next generation should be judged. Already we see, whether neo-liberal US hawks want to believe it or not, that China's blessings on matters of foreign policy matter, not only to those in the geographical area, but most importantly to the US. The US needs China on board when combating Iran. Even 10 years ago, the situation would have been different, there would have been overtures and respect given but no credence given to the Chinese position. It is different now, and I think it is quite plain to see. Geeze, the Dalai Lama visits the US and meets with the President and we get one lousy picture?

Of course more and more with the economic growth of China these two different thoughts merge into one anyway - with China becoming the workhouse of the world, the fuel for global trade, just like over the last century people have disliked the US but have been economically forced not to hate them - the same is the case with China, ergo China plays and is considered, a bigger part on the world stage. Though they are still behind the US now, in 5 years time they will be their equal, even if they are not so statistically when you look at the economy.

As to why I want this to happen? Firstly I do not consider China to be evil. That I think is an important point to make, because a lot of people seem irrationally afraid and fearful of China, it is much like how some of the world are irrationally hateful and scared of the US. I do not believe either is evil, simply at times both misunderstood and wrong. This also is nothing to do with China's values in relevance to mine - not at all, I find some values of theirs distasteful and some honourable, much like the US.

The real reason why I think this is a good thing? Because in terms of international relations I prescribe to the Idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_%28international_relations%29) train of thought and I believe with more than one superpower it is a better situation in which to flourish. That could be flawed - in fact it probably is - but it is my belief, for a number of reasons, and thus I stick to it. The US to a large degree has done a very noble and honourable job in policing the world but it has also had free reign to do whatever the hell it likes, with another superpower this tendency, in my view, is diminished.

Loads more I could type, studied this area a damn enough, but getting tired etc - I am sure you get my drift! :)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Are we talking economically or about global dominance?Which ever you want. And good to see you back!

Aren't both very much connected, as Clinton's statements show?

WASHINGTON, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday said "outrageous" advice from former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan helped create record U.S. budget deficits that put national security at risk.

Appearing before congressional panels to defend the State Department's $52.8 billion budget request for 2011, Clinton said the massive U.S. foreign debt had sapped U.S. strength around the world.
"It breaks my heart that 10 years ago we had a balanced budget, that we were on the way of paying down the debt of the United States of America," Clinton said.

[...]

Having to rely on foreign creditors hit "our ability to protect our security, to manage difficult problems and to show the leadership that we deserve," she said.

"The moment of reckoning cannot be put off forever," she said. "I really honestly wish I could turn the clock back."
Though she did not mention it, China's portfolio of some $755 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds has become a concern for some U.S. policymakers. They worry that Beijing's creditor status could create leverage to influence U.S. policy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2511749320100225
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~




Chongqing. Most people will have never heard of it. It is a provincial town. It is three times the size of Paris.
That's mostly because it's also geographically three times the size of Paris. The city itself, with a population of 5 million, is, while large, smaller than Paris. Anyhow, it's also the most important industrial area in China's hinterland, not just some random "provincial town".Well, firstly, Chongqing is mentioned to convey a sense of size, of unparalleled growth of a scale still not fully realised yet. That is the point that is made by the statement. Meaning, context and all that. Here, one would negate the point being made not by saying that Chonqging is an important industrial area, but by saying it isn't.

Random pedantry is not impressive. Rather, it shows inability to distinguish trivialities from what's important, as is the case here. More worryingly, spewing random facts to impress has become sooo obsolote ever since we all got ourselves a wikipedia.

Secondly, if one wants to be pedantic, at least do your homework, eh? Wiki alone does not suffice, one must also understand the random facts one finds on it. The city of Chongqing has three times the inhabitants of the city of Paris. The municipality of Chonqging also has three times the inhabitants of the aire urbane of Paris, or the region of Île-de-France, mostly rural too.


The rest of your post is wrong because the capital of China is Beijing. Which means 'Northern Capital' and has the postal code 100000 - 102629.

And don't call me sparky, small fry.

[Furunculus]

Gah, better actually give a proper opinion then.

Let us not kid ourselves, we are already whitnessing the end of US hegemony and the progress towards a twin superpower world order. It is not simply down to the economy, I have not read all the posts above this one, but I am sure you have some to the conclusion that though China's rate of economic growth will slow, they will continue to grow at an extremely good rate none the less, especially when comparing it to the rest of the developed world. Just as they showed their economic strength in being the first to come out of the world recession and grow again - at a considerable rate to boot! - they will continue to flex their economic muscle and unlike other emerging economies - Brazil and India spring to mind - because they dont have the 'moral compass' of a democracy, the growth will march onwards, ever onwards.

But as I said it is not simply economically that the emerging world order of the next generation should be judged. Already we see, whether neo-liberal US hawks want to believe it or not, that China's blessings on matters of foreign policy matter, not only to those in the geographical area, but most importantly to the US. The US needs China on board when combating Iran. Even 10 years ago, the situation would have been different, there would have been overtures and respect given but no credence given to the Chinese position. It is different now, and I think it is quite plain to see. Geeze, the Dalai Lama visits the US and meets with the President and we get one lousy picture?

Of course more and more with the economic growth of China these two different thoughts merge into one anyway - with China becoming the workhouse of the world, the fuel for global trade, just like over the last century people have disliked the US but have been economically forced not to hate them - the same is the case with China, ergo China plays and is considered, a bigger part on the world stage. Though they are still behind the US now, in 5 years time they will be their equal, even if they are not so statistically when you look at the economy.

As to why I want this to happen? Firstly I do not consider China to be evil. That I think is an important point to make, because a lot of people seem irrationally afraid and fearful of China, it is much like how some of the world are irrationally hateful and scared of the US. I do not believe either is evil, simply at times both misunderstood and wrong. This also is nothing to do with China's values in relevance to mine - not at all, I find some values of theirs distasteful and some honourable, much like the US.

The real reason why I think this is a good thing? Because in terms of international relations I prescribe to the Idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_%28international_relations%29) train of thought and I believe with more than one superpower it is a better situation in which to flourish. That could be flawed - in fact it probably is - but it is my belief, for a number of reasons, and thus I stick to it. The US to a large degree has done a very noble and honourable job in policing the world but it has also had free reign to do whatever the hell it likes, with another superpower this tendency, in my view, is diminished.

Loads more I could type, studied this area a damn enough, but getting tired etc - I am sure you get my drift! :)

cheers for the response.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well, firstly, Chongqing is

Since times of yore one of the most important cities within the Chinese hinterland. It's municipality appears the size of Belgium. Thus it isn't particularly surprising that it is a large city; moreover it is a bad example to take. Seriously though as of 2006 it was apparently the 10th most desirable city in China to live in: http://www.chinese-culture.net/html/top_cities_in_china.html Although I don't know how reliable the source is; but an interesting tidbit nonetheless.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Since times of yore one of the most important cities within the Chinese hinterland. It's municipality appears the size of Belgium. Thus it isn't particularly surprising that it is a large city; moreover it is a bad example to take. Seriously though as of 2006 it was apparently the 10th most desirable city in China to live in: http://www.chinese-culture.net/html/top_cities_in_china.html Although I don't know how reliable the source is; but an interesting tidbit nonetheless.No, it isn't surprising it is a large city. Therefore it is a good example, because few in the West will be familiar with even the name of Chonqging.
My irritation is that a thread about the emergence of China and the consequences thereof will devolve into some pointless arguments over whether some city is the exact size of Belgium or of the Czech Republic. That is not important, not relevant, and not at all interesting either.

'China is urbanising at astonishing pace and scale, has vast industrial powerhouses beyond a few export orientated Hong Kong's on the coast'. That is the point. Conveying a sense of scale and enormity.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Okay if your point is "hey look; some of you may never have heard of these but in 50 years time schools around the world will teach Chongqing, Wuhan, Harbin, Nanjing" instead of "Paris, Hannover, Valencia, Brno" in Topography 101 classes: then yes good point.

EDIT: I should probably add that (a) I get a bit tired of these China will Rule and Everyone Will be Chinese: your resistance is futile type of predictions and more importantly that (b) you have picked basically the equivalent of Shanghai as far as Sichuan goes. Perhaps something that in its context is more like Shanghai than Shanghai itself. Sichuan isn't a random backwater province, and never has been. Within Sichuan and South(-West) China in general Chongqing has been very much a center city and region; if not the capital. Much like how Cologne has been *the* German city in West Germany for ages. Thus saying "urbanization is massive, scale is enormous; industrial power is vast in China -- for all this look at Chongqing" is not very interesting or very illuminating.* It is true. It is correct. But the example is not very convincing/illuminating because as far as the city itself goes, it always has been relatively large, industrial, etc. etc. to begin with. Even within Chinese context and proportions. It has seen a steady influx of migrants and businesses during the various 20th century wars in China; during the various revolutions; and now during a phase of over-populous eastern hubs now (Chinese) people no longer consider that the pinnacle of city-life anymore apparently. Why then should it be exemplary of why China will take the Crown in year YUAN?

If it's just "hey look what a big city I found today, I bet you didn't hear about this one before" then as far as points go it's pretty meh. :shrug:

[Strike For The South]

They cab take my hegomoney from my cold dead hands.

Which will probably be pretty soon.

The US needs to sort itself out before we can even think of taking on China. Honestly Texas seccesion is looking better and better every day. The Europeans are parctically throwing money at us and we can still hold our own in the world energy market.

I really fail to see what the rest of these debt riddeled states have to offer.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Part of that (the energy market) is because the USA consumes a disproportionate amount of stuff in general. Even with artificially cheap merchandise from China that habit won't help the USA one bit if it wants to sort of learn its economy to walk & chew gum at the same time when it comes to finding ways of making a net profit. From an economy health perspective the USA has a long way to go there. Agriculture, industry, finance -- it should be more robust, learn to walk/chew gum on its own, and depend less on the absolute success of a single one of them. It's not just the USA that has this problem, but the USA is kind of the shining light, the embodiment of this: a very real, tangible lesson in “how you should not do it after all”.

[Sarmatian]

EDIT: I should probably add that (a) I get a bit tired of these China will Rule and Everyone Will be Chinese: your resistance is futile type of predictions

I feel you're misintrepreting what's this thread is about. It's not China will Rule and Everyone Will be Chinese but China wll be the most influental country in the world.

[Louis VI the Fat]

If it's just "hey look what a big city I found today, I bet you didn't hear about this one before" then as far as points go it's pretty meh. :shrug:Good thing then that this isn't the point:

"Chongqing is mentioned to convey a sense of size, of unparalleled growth of a scale still not fully realised yet. That is the point."
"'China is urbanising at astonishing pace and scale, has vast industrial powerhouses beyond a few export orientated Hong Kong's on the coast'. That is the point. Conveying a sense of scale and enormity."

I already (almost) regret posting a wee little picture of some Chinese city to convey a sense of scale and urgency. I should not get worked up about it, but I am that irritated by it.
Chonqging is a great example even simply by virtue of being a large Chinese city undergoing rapid development. Copy'ing and pasting tidbits about it that one just found on the internets five minutes ago is not relevant, not conducive to debate, and not telling of being able to distinguish trivialities from what's important.


Meh. I am going to read JAG's post again, he stimulates my thought and makes me rethink some of my assumptions about China's rise.

[Pannonian]

Good thing then that this isn't the point:

"Chongqing is mentioned to convey a sense of size, of unparalleled growth of a scale still not fully realised yet. That is the point."
"'China is urbanising at astonishing pace and scale, has vast industrial powerhouses beyond a few export orientated Hong Kong's on the coast'. That is the point. Conveying a sense of scale and enormity."

I already (almost) regret posting a wee little picture of some Chinese city to convey a sense of scale and urgency. I should not get worked up about it, but I am that irritated by it.
Chonqging is a great example even simply by virtue of being a large Chinese city undergoing rapid development. Copy'ing and pasting tidbits about it that one just found on the internets five minutes ago is not relevant, not conducive to debate, and not telling of being able to distinguish trivialities from what's important.


Meh. I am going to read JAG's post again, he stimulates my thought and makes me rethink some of my assumptions about China's rise.

One of the more interesting interviews on the rise of China that I've seen on TV was from a newspaper/magazine editor in Shanghai. He said that, in practice, there was very little interference from Beijing in Shanghai that he knew of, and that he virtually had a free hand in whatever he wanted to write about. This chimes with what I've heard of Hong Kong, where one governor was chided for constantly referring to Beijing for the party line, and was told to get on with his job and stop bothering the central government. In the metropolitan areas at least, much of the limits on individual freedoms are within socially acceptable (for Chinese) limits, and possibly set by social constraints as well. While the more cosmopolitan parts of China and the west have much in common, there are also some western values like individual freedoms which aren't held as high in China, while there's a level of nationalism in China that seems quaint in post-WW2 western Europe.

[The Wizard]

2015 - and it is a great thing, the sooner the better.

Knowing this is a troll, I'll take the bait regardless: how does it come about that a declared socialist supports the dictatorial capitalist one-party state that is the PRC? :thinking:


Well, firstly, Chongqing is mentioned to convey a sense of size, of unparalleled growth of a scale still not fully realised yet. That is the point that is made by the statement. Meaning, context and all that. Here, one would negate the point being made not by saying that Chonqging is an important industrial area, but by saying it isn't.

Random pedantry is not impressive. Rather, it shows inability to distinguish trivialities from what's important, as is the case here. More worryingly, spewing random facts to impress has become sooo obsolote ever since we all got ourselves a wikipedia.

Secondly, if one wants to be pedantic, at least do your homework, eh? Wiki alone does not suffice, one must also understand the random facts one finds on it. The city of Chongqing has three times the inhabitants of the city of Paris. The municipality of Chonqging also has three times the inhabitants of the aire urbane of Paris, or the region of Île-de-France, mostly rural too.


The rest of your post is wrong because the capital of China is Beijing. Which means 'Northern Capital' and has the postal code 100000 - 102629.

And don't call me sparky, small fry.

Well, allow me to retort, sparky (~;)). There is nothing trivial about asserting that Chongqing looks impressive until you realize it's basically a province the size of the Netherlands, not one giant city like Tokyo. There is nothing pedantic about spewing facts when you are replying to someone else spewing facts (it was you after all who began by dropping the incorrect factoid that the "provincial town" Chongqing is bigger than Paris). And if you're going to argue municipalities... you can make a municipality as large or as small as you want. Miami is generally understood to have millions of inhabitants, but the municipality only contains half a million people. Would you say it's a city of 500k, then?

It's all rather marginal, really, this argument. If you want to make a point about China's size, Louis, at least do it properly, eh? Say something about how there are like 50-100 cities of more than 1 million inhabitants in that country, and that still, despite this, half the population is rural. That would have gotten the point across quite nicely, and would have spared you the ire of hopeless nitpickers such as myself.

EDIT: OK, I know I shouldn't drag this pointless little factoid shootout out any longer, but this is going a bit too far:


Chonqging is a great example even simply by virtue of being a large Chinese city undergoing rapid development. Copy'ing and pasting tidbits about it that one just found on the internets five minutes ago is not relevant, not conducive to debate, and not telling of being able to distinguish trivialities from what's important.

Excuse me, but why are you giving me flak for posting "tidbits one just found on the Internets" when it is you that posted a tidbit you found on those Internets and I merely replied to it? FYI, if you hadn't seen it, I was not trying to portray you as a dimwit, as stated in my second post in this thread. Please tone down the hostility. I don't bear you any ill will. And if you don't want to argue tidbits and factoids, well, then don't make half a post out of it.

[JAG]

Knowing this is a troll, I'll take the bait regardless: how does it come about that a declared socialist supports the dictatorial capitalist one-party state that is the PRC?

How about you actually read all the posts properly? And it wasn't a troll, in fact what is a troll is the post you just posted.

[KukriKhan]

Gentlemen, a point of protocol: page 3 (post #60+) is the place for personal sniping and allegations of trollmanship. Such activities on page 2 are premature. I'm sure posters will be happy to adjust their aim.

-------------------------------
The OP began his survey of backroom opinions by asking the question "When?". Readers weighed in* and some attempt was made to explore "How?". Now we are looking at "If?", a serious challenge to the underlying assumptions of the OP. This is traditional backroom method, employed since 1999; the next step being: temporarily set aside the challenge, and explore the 5-, 20-, and 30-year ramifications/consequences of a fully-emerged China. Does that emergence necessarily dictate the demise of Europe and the Americas? Can there be only one top dog? To what extent do we think China will exploit that position, if achieved? I urge discussion to follow this path.

*I note the earth-shaking, but unheralded event of JAG and I agreeing. I always knew the day would come, but never imagined it would be over China. :)

[bobbin]

China will never take the crown, it's a republic:clown:.

[Furunculus]

a timely revelation:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7342908/China-should-sprint-to-become-the-worlds-most-powerful-country.html



China 'should sprint to become the world's most powerful country'
China should build the world's strongest military and move swiftly to topple the United States as the global "champion", a senior Chinese PLA officer says in a new book reflecting swelling nationalist ambitions.

Published: 7:24AM GMT 01 Mar 2010

The call for China to abandon modesty about its global goals and "sprint to become world number one" comes from a People's Liberation Army (PLA) Senior Colonel, Liu Mingfu, who warns that his nation's ascent will alarm Washington, risking war despite Beijing's hopes for a "peaceful rise".

"China's big goal in the 21st century is to become world number one, the top power," Liu writes in his newly published Chinese-language book, "The China Dream".

"If China in the 21st century cannot become world number one, cannot become the top power, then inevitably it will become a straggler that is cast aside," writes Liu, a professor at the elite National Defence University, which trains rising officers.

His 303-page book stands out for its boldness even in a recent chorus of strident Chinese voices demanding a hard shove back against Washington over trade, Tibet, human rights, and arms sales to Taiwan, the self-ruled island Beijing claims as its own.

"As long as China seeks to rise to become world number one ... then even if China is even more capitalist than the U.S., the US will still be determined to contain it," writes Liu.

Rivalry between the two powers is a "competition to be the leading country, a conflict over who rises and falls to dominate the world," says Liu. "To save itself, to save the world, China must prepare to become the (world's) helmsman."

"The China Dream" does not represent government policy, which has been far less strident about the nation's goals.

Liu's book testifies to the homegrown pressures on China's Communist Party leadership to show the country's fast economic growth is translating into greater sway against the West, still mired in an economic slowdown.

The next marker of how China's leaders are handling these swelling expectations may come later this week, when the government is likely to announce its defence budget for 2010, after a 14.9 per cent rise last year on the one in 2008.

"This book represents my personal views, but I think it also reflects a tide of thought," Liu told Reuters in an interview. "We need a military rise as well as an economic rise."

Another PLA officer has said this year's defence budget should send a defiant signal to Washington after the Obama administration went ahead in January with long-known plans to sell $6.4 billion worth of arms to Taiwan.

"I think one part of 'public opinion' that the leadership pays attention to is elite opinion, and that includes the PLA," said Alan Romberg, an expert on China and Taiwan at the Henry L. Stimson Center, an institute in Washington DC.

"I think the authorities are seeking to keep control of the reaction, even as they need to take (it) into account," Mr Romberg said in an emailed response to questions.

Liu argues that China should use its growing revenues to become the world's biggest military power, so strong the United States "would not dare and would not be able to intervene in military conflict in the Taiwan Strait".

"If China's goal for military strength is not to pass the United States and Russia, then China is locking itself into being a third-rate military power," he writes. "Turn some money bags into bullet holders."

China's leaders do not want to jeopardise ties with the United States, a key trade partner and still by far the world's biggest economy and military power.

Yet Chinese public ire, echoed on the Internet, means policy-makers have to tread more carefully when handling rival domestic and foreign demands, said Jin Canrong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing.

"Chinese society is changing, and you see that in all the domestic views now on what China should do about the United States," said Jin. "If society demands a stronger stance, ignoring that can bring a certain cost."

Liu's book was officially published in January, but is only now being sold in Beijing bookstores.

In recent months, strains have widened between Beijing and Washington over trade, Internet controls, climate change, U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and President Barack Obama's meeting with Tibet's exiled leader, the Dalai Lama, who China reviles.

China has so far responded with angry words and a threat to sanction U.S.

companies involved in the Taiwan arms sales. But it has not acted on that threat and has allowed a U.S. aircraft carrier to visit Hong Kong.

Over the weekend, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said he wanted trade friction with the United States to ease. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg is due to visit Beijing this week.

Liu and other PLA officers, however, say they see little chance of avoiding deepening rivalry with the United States, whether peaceful or warlike.

"I'm very pessimistic about the future," writes another PLA officer, Colonel Dai Xu, in another recently published book that claims China is largely surrounded by hostile or wary countries beholden to the United States.

"I believe that China cannot escape the calamity of war, and this calamity may come in the not-too-distant future, at most in 10 to 20 years," writes Dai.

"If the United States can light a fire in China's backyard, we can also light a fire in their backyard," warns Dai.

Liu said he hoped China and the United States could manage their rivalry through peaceful competition.

"In his State of the Union speech, Obama said the United States would never accept coming second-place, but if he reads my book he'll know China does not want to always be a runner-up," said Liu in the interview.

[rajpoot]

Most interesting read, this thread.....

IMO, China is well on it's way to become the leading nation....All the talk of India being able to balance it out is as good as baseless.....India seems to be making progress, but like it's been said, progress shown in figures really does not mean much....on the ground level, we can't be farther from becoming a power of any sort....
China on the other hand is actually progressing.....actually progressing enough to be able to play in the Asian field and actually have effects....
My two cents.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Furunculus:
That is endemic in army culture is it not: army officials who talk the strong talk, even if it is a good for nothing endeavour. That's kind of what armies do: “look I've got 500 tanks now, so don't tell me what I can and cannot do”. And up to a certain degree there is a point. As I see it much of this line of reasoning boils down to a few simple observations; and the rhetorical device of dialogue:

“China should not kid itself that the US is going to treat China anytime soon like the UK; despite the fact that China owns nearly a quarter of the US. And why should it let the US decide its foreign policy? China is after all not some random 10 million inhabitant nation; it is basically the single largest nation on earth in terms of headcount. So why should China not throw some weight around to get the US to realize it owes China more money; that it owes China something more than it currently seems aware of?”

Of course this professor goes well beyond that, in asserting that China must “sprint” to become the top of the food chain of international relations. But that is up to a degree to be expected from a comfortable armchair general position; combined with perhaps a little too high a dose of the PLA-aid.

[Furunculus]

sure, i'm not claiming it is official policy mandated universally at the previous Communist jamboree, but it was interesting none the less given the topic.

[Louis VI the Fat]

*post*Okay, so I counted to ten. Or to three days rather.

Upon sober reflection, it's all a lot of internet drama over nothing of substance. I already regret posting all of that and I regret letting my irritation get the better of me and adressing you in a way that is unnecessary and deplorable.

Let's have no more of this. ~:grouphug:




~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~




The call for China to abandon modesty about its global goals and "sprint to become world number one" comes from a People's Liberation Army (PLA) Senior Colonel, Liu Mingfu, who warns that his nation's ascent will alarm Washington, risking war despite Beijing's hopes for a "peaceful rise".

"China's big goal in the 21st century is to become world number one, the top power," Liu writes in his newly published Chinese-language book, "The China Dream".I must admit I sometimes do wonder about the eventual face of China. It will seek a place in accordance to its power. But is its goal a peaceful and co-operative ascendancy, or is it merely biding its time?

To me, China is still very much an enigma wrapped in a mystery in a riddle.


'When the nightingale sings, a thousand lotus flowers blossom'. Which is, in fact, not a Chinese proverb, but a nonsensical statement I just made up that makes as much sense as I can make of China, i.e. none.

[Furunculus]

thanks Louis, your poetry really does warm my cockles. :)

[The Wizard]

Louis: Your post reminded me of the fact that the Chinese President and Premier always show up at PLA events dressed in Mao suits. At any other event, you'll find them wearing a simple suit and tie. Apparently, the military is not just petty enough to require such rituals, but also conservative enough ("conservative" in a PRC context). Which isn't surprising considering the average political color of the average military, but it is kind of worrying with an eye on future Chinese power.

[cegorach]

Unfortunatelly there is no option to say: 'China although powerful suffers from numerous problems which would eventually reach the surface and bring it down. Aging society, social tension, censorship, corruption, pollution, sick banking system and old practices of favourism and nepotism combined with faked statystical data cannot be contained forever. Chine might be rising quickly, but when it reaches certain point it faces all problems of more developed states as well as all mentioned above. I don't belive that China will replace America, not without drastic changes which will take more than a couple of decades.

For this reason I voted 'Gah!'.

[Furunculus]

china engaged in a cyber-war with the west:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article7053254.ece

economist view on when/if china will take the top spot:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/03/growth

Still the one

* Mar 9th 2010, 1:41 by A.S. | NEW YORK

WILL America always be the world’s foremost economic superpower? Probably not. No empire maintains their superior position forever. So it’s more of a question of when rather than if America is overtaken. But I'm not convinced the end is nigh just yet.

One of the ways in which a country's economic superiority is measured is by looking at its share of world GDP. If America falters in this category, who will replace it at the top of the list? China’s GDP growth rate is much higher than America’s (even when it’s not in a recession). But that does not necessarily mean China will overtake America. GDP growth is driven by three factors: technology, labour, and capital. China is currently employing lots of labour and acquiring capital. But over time, adding more capital or labour does not add much growth because each has diminishing returns. Much of China’s impressive growth comes from opening its market and experiencing a large catch up.

China also lags behind America in terms of economic leadership. America hosts an exceptionally dynamic marketplace where new business and technology thrive. Being a centre of innovation ensures sustainable long-term growth. It is not obvious yet whether China’s market is a place where creativity and entrepreneurship can thrive. In the 1960s many thought the Soviet Union’s impressive growth would spell doom for America. But ultimately the inability to create a healthy innovative market, stalled growth and led to the Soviet demise.

Still, if America is to maintain its dominant position it must continue to foster innovation and, by extension, nurture an educated workforce. That means reforming education and immigration. America contains most of the world’s leading universities, which attract the most talented students. But immigration policy must do more to allow foreign students to stay on and work. Many do so on H1-B visas, which the government limits. According to Jennifer Hunt migrants who come as students and on H1Bs are more entrepreneurial and innovative than natives or other kinds of immigrants. Being less open to immigration means these people return home or don't come in the first place. Increasingly some may not feel as compelled to migrate. As countries like India have developed and offered more opportunities for its citizens, more innovation has occurred there.

On the other hand, according to Amar Bhide, this might not be a concern in a more global economy. He reckons Americans need not worry about producing enough scientists and engineers. Americans are such venturesome consumers new products can always thrive in the market here. This also creates jobs and industry; new technology sparks growth no matter where it comes from. The first-mover advantage may be less important than an ability to adopt and embrace innovation.

An altogether different concern for America involves the country's debt. According to Peggy Noonan:

People are freshly aware and concerned about the real-world implications of a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit, of a $14 trillion debt. It will rob America of its economic power, and eventually even of its ability to defend itself. Militaries cost money. And if other countries own our debt, don't they in some new way own us? If China holds enough of your paper, does it also own some of your foreign policy? Do we want to find out? And there are the moral implications of the debt, which have so roused the tea party movement: The old vote themselves benefits that their children will have to pay for. What kind of a people do that?

Debt can impede America's economic future. If the debt becomes unmanageable America must offer higher interest rates and pay more for the capital required to fuel growth. Paying less for capital investments than other countries gives America a distinct economic advantage. Taking on lots of debt undermines this special position. But I am not as sure that China has America over a barrel because it owns so much American debt. America can always default. It's highly unlikely and the economic costs to the world economy would be devastating (and of course issuing debt after default would be harder). But if it were a matter of security, it could happen.

Underlying all this is the question: Who cares? If America loses its position as the world’s largest and most powerful economy does it really matter? The country's national pride would take a blow. And perhaps there are geopolitical reasons for wanting to hang on to the top spot. But, economically speaking, it probably wouldn't be so bad. Often when it comes to growth and globalisation, a high tide raises all boats. For example, the quality of life today is far better for most Britons than it was a century ago, when it was the world’s leading empire. Britain’s economy still grew even as America’s topped it.

So long as growth continues and successive generations of Americans live better than the last, does it really matter that someone else is getting even richer?