Org Mobile Site
Thread: When will China take the Crown?
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.
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.
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...
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
Are we talking economically or about global dominance?
Which ever you want. And good to see you back!Are we talking economically or about global dominance?
Aren't both very much connected, as Clinton's statements show?
Originally Posted by :
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
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~~
Originally Posted by Louis:
Chongqing. Most people will have never heard of it. It is a provincial town. It is three times the size of Paris.
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.Chongqing. Most people will have never heard of it. It is a provincial town. It is three times the size of Paris.
Originally Posted by The Wizard:
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".
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".
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.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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/..._in_china.html Although I don't know how reliable the source is; but an interesting tidbit nonetheless.Well, firstly, Chongqing is
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
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/..._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. 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/..._in_china.html Although I don't know how reliable the source is; but an interesting tidbit nonetheless.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
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.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
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
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.
Good thing then that this isn't the point: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.
"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."
"'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."
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.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Good thing then that this isn't the point: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.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."
"'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."
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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO