Org Mobile Site
Thread: When will China take the Crown?
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...
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...
Originally Posted by 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...
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.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...
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
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. 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.
The only thing that may actually slow down China is lack of energy and mineral resources.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
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.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.
2015 - and it is a great thing, the sooner the better.
Originally Posted by JAG:
2015 - and it is a great thing, the sooner the better.
two questions:2015 - and it is a great thing, the sooner the better.
1) how do you think this could happen?
2) why do you want it to happen?
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 :-(
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 :-(
Originally Posted by 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 :-(
don't worry, it's a well documented phenomenom, it's only the freaks like me that start out on the right.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 :-(
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
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.two questions:
1) how do you think this could happen?
2) why do you want it to happen?
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 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! :)
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 JAG:
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 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.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 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! :)
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.
Originally Posted by JAG:
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? 2015 - and it is a great thing, the sooner the better.
Originally Posted by Louis:
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 (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.
). 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:
Originally Posted by Louis:
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
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.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?
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. :)
-------------------------------
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. :)
China will never take the crown, it's a republic
.
.a timely revelation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...l-country.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...l-country.html
Originally Posted by :
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by The Wizard:
*post*
Okay, so I counted to ten. Or to three days rather.*post*
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.
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
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.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
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?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".
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.
thanks Louis, your poetry really does warm my cockles. :)
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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO