The 21st Century Satan

[ICantSpellDawg]

Same thing has happened in Taiwan. The current graduating population is seen as lazy and not wanting to work.

The same thing will happen in China but only quicker.

Combine the one child policy that creates little Emperors (the term for 4 grandparents who spoil their one and only grandchild) with a growing middle class and you will have one of the most spoilt generations in next to no time. The only thing that possibly could stop the lazy generation from widening is internal problems where the farmers rise against the richer city kids. But even the farmers have lots of little Emperors running around and what to just look after their grandchildren. So they in turn are encouraging them to go to the city and get more money.

So either a generation of very western "I'm the center of the universe Gen Y+1" will be in abundance over the next decade OR internal decent boils over and China goes through another cultural revolution and is no longer the manufacturing hub.

They will become either western or non-competitive.

Now for India it is a different story, they have large families, greater depth of English speakers, and are democratic. What slows down their economic growth to half that of Chinas is the caste system and very poor penetration of infrastructure which in turn curtails true long term growth.. In the end a vibrant India will also go throw the leisure industry growth, and I don't think India is to be worried about as much as China... after all India plays cricket.

Sure - these things are all possible. I have never feared India.

I just don't feel as comfortable relying of games of wit, rhetoric and theory when there is an ominous totalitarian powerbeast hanging over our heads.

[drone]

Combine the one child policy that creates little Emperors (the term for 4 grandparents who spoil their one and only grandchild) with a growing middle class and you will have one of the most spoilt generations in next to no time. The only thing that possibly could stop the lazy generation from widening is internal problems where the farmers rise against the richer city kids. But even the farmers have lots of little Emperors running around and what to just look after their grandchildren. So they in turn are encouraging them to go to the city and get more money.

So either a generation of very western "I'm the center of the universe Gen Y+1" will be in abundance over the next decade OR internal decent boils over and China goes through another cultural revolution and is no longer the manufacturing hub.

Regarding China's 1 child policy: what are their plans for the time when this skews the demographics and they end up with lots of old people and not enough workers? I'm not really familiar with their health care/social security, but I would imagine this will be a problem even worse than the one we are going to face here when the baby boomers stop working.

Also, are they being affected by the rising food costs yet? Word on the street is that rice is getting kind of pricey. Surely this will not go over too well in the rural areas.

[Fragony]

baby boomers stop working.

Just globalwarm them. Didn't know they use that one in your habitat as well. Baby boomer$, good one. Could somebody kindly explain to me why governments are in any way different then the mafia.

[Vladimir]

Regarding China's 1 child policy: what are their plans for the time when this skews the demographics and they end up with lots of old people and not enough workers? I'm not really familiar with their health care/social security, but I would imagine this will be a problem even worse than the one we are going to face here when the baby boomers stop working.

Also, are they being affected by the rising food costs yet? Word on the street is that rice is getting kind of pricey. Surely this will not go over too well in the rural areas.

It's a great way to have enough near-term manpower to fill an army. Chinese tend to plan for the long haul and it would be interesting if this was intended.

How strictly is this policy enforced anyway? Is it just a fine or do they suck the other ones down a vacuum tube?

Whoops. Not the old people, but all the males who can't find a wife.

[HoreTore]

Regarding China's 1 child policy: what are their plans for the time when this skews the demographics and they end up with lots of old people and not enough workers? I'm not really familiar with their health care/social security, but I would imagine this will be a problem even worse than the one we are going to face here when the baby boomers stop working.

As you note with the baby boomers here, this will happen everywhere, almost no matter what. China would have gotten this problem sooner or later anyway. In fact, since "regular" reproduction is so unstable and prone to booming, regulations are the only way to limit this problem.

Look at it long term: while we in the west will have this problem until the end of time, the chinese will just have it one more time.

Also, are they being affected by the rising food costs yet? Word on the street is that rice is getting kind of pricey. Surely this will not go over too well in the rural areas.

I would be very surprised if the price wasn't fixed by the government. And I'd guess that the chinese have a lot of money to blow on subsidies.

[Watchman]

Could somebody kindly explain to me why governments are in any way different then the mafia.

Well, they're a whole lot more polite about missed payments due for one. And when you pay them to "protect" yorself, it actually means they do it rather than them refraining from busting your knees and nailing your cat to the door.
Plus you get to actually have a say in who runs the show, or at least in my neck of woods anyway.

How's that for starters ?

[Furious Mental]

China's income tax system is very lax, as I understand it. As it becomes more efficiently run and more people enter the tax brackets it will be able to support a much larger welfare state than the one which exists now (which is in an extremely shoddy state). Also the government could stop expanding the PLA's budget by so many billions of dollars a year.

[Abokasee]

Also the government could stop expanding the PLA's budget by so many billions of dollars a year.

Yeah it seems something cooking... lets have a look at its neigbours...



All its neighbours are weak (With the exception of russia which can be said "Golden age" if far over, and India which just dosnt match up) so its got alot of pickings it can just eat.

[Watchman]

I thought large-scale wars between industrialised nations were kind of passé these days ? What with their bad habit of becoming very very expensive, drawn out, and/or potentially nuclear. Plus sheer territorial conquest is really a pretty bad way to try to get resources, not that I could off the top of my head think of any really important one China could theoretically aquire by neighbourhood expansionism...

Plus then there's the geography. And the SE Asians' noted tradition of warm welcomes into their jungles.

[Quirinus]

Oh, wow. I was laughing at this genius of a thread until I realised that you guys were serious.

Is the Daily Mail generally taken as legitimate journalism in the West? I was under the impression it was a tabloid rag.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh, wow. I was laughing at this genius of a thread until I realised that you guys were serious.

Is the Daily Mail generally taken as legitimate journalism in the West? I was under the impression it was a tabloid rag.

Why does it matter who wrote the rag?

Does China exist? Is their government stable and totalitarian? Do they incinerate dissent? Are they a burgeoning economic powerhouse with over 1.6 billion people? Is their nationalism growing at an incredible rate?

What can history and common sense tell us about the possibilities of a dangerous potential enemy?

I'm sorry, they couldn't possibly wage an aggressive war because they are China - land of the happy tiny people who make tiddlywinks really cheap and have cute funny accents.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I thought large-scale wars between industrialised nations were kind of passé these days ? What with their bad habit of becoming very very expensive, drawn out, and/or potentially nuclear. Plus sheer territorial conquest is really a pretty bad way to try to get resources, not that I could off the top of my head think of any really important one China could theoretically aquire by neighbourhood expansionism...

Plus then there's the geography. And the SE Asians' noted tradition of warm welcomes into their jungles.

These days meaning what? The past 50 years? Did you notice a variable?

The U.S. Hegemony. the USSR folded pretty early on and only really had the threat of nuclear war and the domino theory after that. China has all of that, 1.7 billion people and an incredibly hungry economy.

Do you believe large scale wars are over? If not, when will we start having them again?

What would be the conditions in which you could foresee such a massive conflict as a possibility?

[Kralizec]

1.6 billion people

1.7 billion people

Where'd you get the idea that their population grows THAT quickly

It's a mere 1.3 billion according to the CIA factbook.

[Quirinus]

Why does it matter who wrote the rag?

News of the World reports that aliens have landed in DC and have taken over the White House! The end is nigh!

Oh.... wait.

I'm sorry, they couldn't possibly wage an aggressive war because they are China - land of the happy tiny people who make tiddlywinks really cheap and have cute funny accents.

There you go again. When you're done attacking that strawman, I'm right here.




Don Corleone said it best:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

When I was a wee little lad, it was the Japanese that were going to own me and force me into indentured servitude. Didn't quite work out that way. Something about inadequate banking systems and a 2 decade recession.

Then I remember the "Asian Tigers", and how if I wanted to have any chance of putting my degree to use when I graduated from University, I ought to start looking to move to ROK, or Taiwan, or Hong Kong.

Then, when I graduated from school, and I had gotten my first job, there was another Far Eastern menace that was taking over the economic world. This time it was Malaysia and Indonesia.

And through it all, amazingly, the USA is still here.

I'm not making light of the situation. Our students ARE lazy. Not enough of them enter science and engineering cirriculum, and of those that do, the majority under apply themselves. As a result, the average graduating class of engineering students, at least the ones I come across, decline year over year.

This is not a universal phenomenon. There are bright, hardworking kids that you come across. You hire these guys, by the way.

But the whole "the scale is tipping too far" paranoia model... it ignores two things.

1) China can try all they want to artifically restrain inflation. Sooner or later, the pressure will become too great and they'll have to let the Yuan go, and the longer they wait, the worse it will be for them in the end. Can you really expect a factory worker to earn $8.00/day, when his residential costs rise to $300/month?

2) As wages rise, demands for a better standard of living rise. Do people really think that the average Londoner in 1888 wasn't saying the same things about the USA that we currently say about China? Did the UK go belly up when the USA grew past it?

Trust me, speaking as somebody who has been to China, worked there, talked to the people... the average Chinese doesn't care one whit about reclaiming lands lost to Russia, and they don't fantasize about invading the USA. (In fact, the commonly accepted Chinese term for the USA is Mei Guang, which means 'the beautiful land'. For a people we fought a war with 50 years ago, they're incredibly friendly and open).

What I predict? A much, much larger segment of the world will join the 'global middle class'. As they do, their wages will rise and some other new place will be the "IT" labor market, possibly Vietnam or Laos. Meanwhile, Chinese society will take its place in the global market as a mature market force, both in terms of demand (its middle class will want I-pods too) and supply (Huawei is gaining on Motorola every day).

And this is a good thing. It's how the world grows up. Yes, there will be competitive pressure on us from China. This is good for them, as they win some accounts, and its good for us too, as our own labor pool and entrepreneurs responds to the competion and steps it up a notch or two. And as a consumer, it's always better for you to have more and more choices.

Clickety.

[TevashSzat]

Okay, lots of questions that I feel have to be answered. (I was born in China btw and lived there until I was 6 when I moved to the US. Still go back to China every other summer to visit family, ect...)

One Child Policy:

Well, the official rule is that you can only have one child per family, BUT most of the wealthy can get away with more since the government just gives you a fine and your placed at a lower priority on some things like housing (well, thats what happened a decade, ago, but now I suspect its even less strict.) These restrictions, however, can only be reasonably enforced among the urban middle class: the rich don't care about the punishments while the poor farmers MUST have lots of children and are basically never punished.

Products:

Actually, China is getting alot better now in living conditions. True, the truely poor which are the poor rural farmers do really have a horrible life, but even for the lower urban class (which is what a majority of my relatives in China are), life isn't THAT bad. I have cousins who although aren't rich by any standards, still have pretty nice cellphones, mp3 players, ect ... The truth is, the standard of living in China has improved tremendously since my parent's generation and is continuing to improve at a faster rate even.

Population:

Umm, there aren't 1.7 or even 1.6 billion people in China, most estimates are around 1.35-1.4 billion people right now atm I believe.

Internal Issues:

Most of the people in China aren't all crying out for independence or calling for the removal of corruption as some might think. Actually, many have come to terms that China is not a democracy and won't be one anytime in the near future. I bet that more of the Chinese popluation approve of the government than that of the American one. If a democracy wasn't installed at the height of the Great Leap Forward when so many died, I can't see how the current Chinese government could fall or even moderately undermined unless something really big or drastic occurs.

Chinese military:

Yeah, we have a large army, but the navy is something to be desired. Truth be told, I highly doubt China will enter any wars. China's real leverage power is its economic ones which are most likely more influential that its military powers. I agree with Watchman, large wars between industrialized nations seem to be a thing of the past. Its even more so given the major powers' power to essentially kill everyone with nukes. That makes sure that no one will win a prolonged, serious war.

China's military budget is growing quite quickly but get this, the US estimates the Chinese military's budget to around 125 billion dollars, compared to the US 550 billion budget. Thats what, only a factor of about 4.5? The Chinese military, although modernizing, is still quite old in some aspects which should quell doomsayers who are fortelling Chinese invasions. They aren't happening.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Where'd you get the idea that their population grows THAT quickly

It's a mere 1.3 billion according to the CIA factbook.

I don't know where the hell I got that number. Maybe because I got the population of China and the world mixed up (1.3 vs 6.7 b). Oops - you called me out. Sorry.



Quirinus - I am aware of doom sayers. Legitimate threats tend to go by population in the modern age. Japan was never a true threat to us. Asian tigers were never a true threat. Sure they could take a bigger piece of the pie, but we have a pretty substantial population and an even more substantial portion of the power. In a more even tiered world, a nation that dwarfs ours under a totalitarian regime is legitimate threat. The real threat would have come when they allied with other tigers, but that wasn't really likely.

We overtook the economies of the various European nations largely because of our population and growth. had we been under a totalitarian government, the world would be very different.

[Watchman]

These days meaning what? The past 50 years? Did you notice a variable?

Post WW2. You may notice a major shortage of open tussles between any two "first rate" powers. Probably something to do with the way two World Wars taught strategists and decision-makers a few lessons concerning what kind of opponent it is sensible to fight with, not that the nukes hurt either.

Quite simply, this isn't the ******* Middle Ages anymore. Access to resources etc. isn't very well realized by military power and the seizure of real estate; it generally works much better to instead send in people with suits and briefcases full of cash and enticing contracts. Seems to be working pretty well in Africa too.

Plus China's kind of short of the actual ability to expand territorially to about enywhere else than the damn Russian Siberia, which would be A) kind of pointless B) really, really dangerous. I sincerely doubt if they're stupid enough they would commit the patent strategic error of sending the tanks into the hornets' nest of Central Asia, rife with tinpot dictators in cahoots with the US and/or Russia, intractable hill tribes armed up to their turbans, and potentially volatile religious currents.

To the south, into India and SE Asia ? It's bloody mountains in the way, India has nukes and odds are a Vietnam trip would not turn out very well. Plus there's nothing worth the gamble down there anyway AFAIK.

The sea, Taiwan and Japan ? They need to build up a real navy and air force first (something which they're quite far away enough ATM), and then ask themselves if they really want to pick a fight with at least the US and quite possibly a big chunk of the wole NATO...

[Strike For The South]

Post WW2. You may notice a major shortage of open tussles between any two "first rate" powers. Probably something to do with the way two World Wars taught strategists and decision-makers a few lessons concerning what kind of opponent it is sensible to fight with, not that the nukes hurt either.

Quite simply, this isn't the ******* Middle Ages anymore. Access to resources etc. isn't very well realized by military power and the seizure of real estate; it generally works much better to instead send in people with suits and briefcases full of cash and enticing contracts. Seems to be working pretty well in Africa too.

Plus China's kind of short of the actual ability to expand territorially to about enywhere else than the damn Russian Siberia, which would be A) kind of pointless B) really, really dangerous. I sincerely doubt if they're stupid enough they would commit the patent strategic error of sending the tanks into the hornets' nest of Central Asia, rife with tinpot dictators in cahoots with the US and/or Russia, intractable hill tribes armed up to their turbans, and potentially volatile religious currents.

To the south, into India and SE Asia ? It's bloody mountains in the way, India has nukes and odds are a Vietnam trip would not turn out very well. Plus there's nothing worth the gamble down there anyway AFAIK.

The sea, Taiwan and Japan ? They need to build up a real navy and air force first (something which they're quite far away enough ATM), and then ask themselves if they really want to pick a fight with at least the US and quite possibly a big chunk of the wole NATO...

quit making sense

[Furious Mental]

"I thought large-scale wars between industrialised nations were kind of passé these days "

There has never been a war between nuclear powers, unless you count the Sino-Soviet border conflict, which I don't because it was just a series of clashes and in any case given that China only tested an IRBM that year its nuclear deterrent was pretty dubious. This is because a war is likely to escalate to the point where the two sides wipe eachother out with nuclear weapons, making the costs of the war greater than any potential benefit. The idea of military expansion isn't to start a war with other nuclear powers, it's to make them accept some sphere of influence, which no doubt China would want to include the Yellow, East and South China Seas. However I can't see that happening because the credibility of the US govt depends so heavily on the commitments it has made to South Korea, Japan, the Phillipines, and, of course, Taiwan, to maintain the military balance in the region. On top of that keeping control of the Malacca Straits is something of a trump card.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"I thought large-scale wars between industrialised nations were kind of passé these days "

There has never been a war between nuclear powers,

There hadn't been nuclear powers before the middle part of this past century. 60 years is not long enough to start establishing rules about "what could never happen".

If there is one thing I've learned studying history, it's that humans will find ways to kill one another on a massive scale.

[Watchman]

That's not much to build alarmist scenarios on though. At least, if you want them taken seriously here.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's not much to build alarmist scenarios on though. At least, if you want them taken seriously here.

What is?

[Watchman]

Not particularly my business, as I detest them and have no interest in concoting one - nevermind now uttering it in public.

But I can tell you that if you start out with a rather specific doomsday scenario and in the end are reduced to muttering vague general platitudes about the human condition, that's a Grade A lame-duck argument.

[Kralizec]

A statement amounting to "X could never happen" is begging to be proven wrong, given enough time.

The chance that it will happen in our lifetimes seems pretty insignificant, though.

[Furious Mental]

I didn't say X could never happen, I said it has never happened, and it hasn't. People (usually military officers) have repeatedly predicted that it would but it hasn't. If it does I suspect it will because of an accident or miscommunication rather than conscious decision by the political leadership of a country to start nuclear war, because it is a war that has no victor.

[Papewaio]

But what happens when you are already losing and have nukes?

Surely starting a nuclear war or better supplying nuclear weapons to a terrorist organisation would not put you in any worse position.

Mind you most of the time they just rattle the nuclear sabre for food.

"North Korean Dictator, Out of Funds, Will turn off nuclear weapons program for food."

[Furious Mental]

Like I said, this is why countries with nuclear weapons don't start wars with each other; they know that if they are about to win the other side may launch nukes, and thus before the war begins it is impossible to gain anything from it.

[Vladimir]

Like I said, this is why countries with nuclear weapons don't start wars with each other; they know that if they are about to win the other side may launch nukes, and thus before the war begins it is impossible to gain anything from it.

Yes, because wars are nice tidy things which never happen in less by mutual consent. All countries leaders are always in complete control of their armed forces, internal politics, and populations. Nothing trivial such as a murder in a backwater country could spiral out of control and lead to a Great War.

Move along, nothing so see here.

[Furious Mental]

"Yes, because wars are nice tidy things which never happen in less by mutual consent."

That isn't what I said. I said that a war with a nuclear power is one which is impossible to win, so it is pointless to start one. It has nothing to do with mutual consent, just the fact that anyone with half a brain knows that aggression against a nuclear power would be futile. Someone here said that 60 years isn't of much significance. Well, no period of time provides a basis to make absolute statements about human behaviour, but the post-WWII period is the longest in modern history without a conflict between great powers.

"All countries leaders are always in complete control of their armed forces, internal politics, and populations. Nothing trivial such as a murder in a backwater country could spiral out of control and lead to a Great War."

Again, replying to something that wasn't said. I said above that a nuclear war would be more likely to start through an accident or miscommunication than a decision by the political leadership, in other words there is always room for the unexpected, although the grave consequences provide a strong incentive to minimise the likelihood.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"Yes, because wars are nice tidy things which never happen in less by mutual consent."

That isn't what I said. I said that a war with a nuclear power is one which is impossible to win, so it is pointless to start one.

Why? Vietnam and Korea waere at war with the United States, even though we had nuclear power. Argentina - United Kingdom. People know that we will most likely not use it against them, at least not when our 50 states aren't threatened.

Would that stop China from moving into the Middle East or South East Asia? They don't have nuclear weapons (for the most part) and we wouldn't be likely to use any to deter them.

What then? Massive war.