Why should we care if china become a world power?

[OmCheeto]

The Chinese manufacture durable goods like bicycles and baby seats but not F-14's and GPS satellites.

Ok. But who shot down who's satellite last year?
Or should I check out snopes?

I think I'm trying to be the ambassador here.
Why are we picking on China?
Are we feeling a bit insecure?

 

[mheslep]

I see there's a huge range of estimates on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)" . I'm fairly sure the generally accepted figure was $11 trillion against the US's $13-14 trillion for perspective, and if China could somehow maintained its ~11% growth rate it would catch the US in 5 years. Now I see the world bank shows 5.3 trillion and the CIA has $7 trillion which I am fairly sure is a revision. I vaguely recall something on some discovery of major accounting flaws; can't nail it down.

Edit: yep, here we go:
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10329268"

 

[DrClapeyron]

Ok. But who shot down who's satellite last year?
Or should I check out snopes?

I think I'm trying to be the ambassador here.
Why are we picking on China?
Are we feeling a bit insecure?

Richard Nixon went to China in the 1970's in which he pursued trade negotiations with the CHinese. Since then there has been a debate how much the US should invest in Chinese labor and resource. China has the largest potential in the world; there is no other country in the world like it in terms of population and natural resources and human capital. India lacks the natural resources and has been seeking isolationist policies since independence.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Since when does becoming a nuclear power equate to being a superpower?

Nukes alone don't. Nukes, plus the things above that I mentioned - an autonomous space program, a GPS system, and putting a man on the moon would. Having a gigantic military-industrial complex and the largest standing army in the world helps too.

I'll turn it around on you: since when does having a low poverty rate and a high standard of living equate to being a superpower? Switzerland and Dubai do pretty well on those counts, are they superpowers? Are you saying this because the U.S. does an exceptionally great job with poverty?

And why did you ignore my point that the Soviet Union didn't do well on either of those counts?

The Chinese manufacture durable goods like bicycles and baby seats but not F-14's and GPS satellites.

I'm not so sure about the GPS satellites, I don't think they're contracting that out, and I know that MacDonnell-Douglas started moving operations over there in the seventies; I'm pretty sure they're manufacturing all kinds of aircraft over there at this point.

Even if you don't believe they make those things, if they've put a man in space how much longer do you think it will be before they do?

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Richard Nixon went to China in the 1970's in which he pursued trade negotiations with the CHinese. Since then there has been a debate how much the US should invest in Chinese labor and resource. China has the largest potential in the world; there is no other country in the world like it in terms of population and natural resources and human capital. India lacks the natural resources and has been seeking isolationist policies since independence.

With all due respect, it sounds like you're working with information that's decades out of date. There isn't a debate about US and world investment in China, that investment has been going on strong since the 70's. At this point China is investing in other parts of the world itself.

And are you talking about India since independence from the British Empire?!? Do you have any idea how much the world and India have changed since then? India is very much a part of the world economy.

⚛​

 

[gravenewworld]

Nukes alone don't. Nukes, plus the things above that I mentioned - an autonomous space program, a GPS system, and putting a man on the moon would. Having a gigantic military-industrial complex and the largest standing army in the world helps too.

I'll turn it around on you: since when does having a low poverty rate and a high standard of living equate to being a superpower? Switzerland and Dubai do pretty well on those counts, are they superpowers? Are you saying this because the U.S. does an exceptionally great job with poverty?

And why did you ignore my point that the Soviet Union didn't do well on either of those counts?

Military strength means nothing without high standards of living. A superpower must have them all. Switzerland and Dubai certainly have high standards of living, but where is their military might? Why did you choose to ignore the fact that China is only ranked about 80-100 in the world in terms of GDP per capita? There certainly is poverty in the US (it is in every country in the world), but you will not see anyone in the US in extreme poverty like the millions of those in the country side like in China.


Russia did have poverty and military strength, but what happened to them? They didn't achieve superpower status until the end of WW2 and were crumbled only a few decades later due in large part to their nonexistent economy and low standards of living.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'll repeat myself again, have you even ever been to China?

nope.

And I'm not talking about just to the major cities in China like Beijing, but have you ever even been to the countryside in China where people live in unbelievable squalor? No? The only reason you think that China has become a superpower is because of only what the media reports. I have passed by some of the places mention in the article below, and let me tell you it is nothing more than a hell hole on Earth.
You have to see with your own eyes how many millions of people in China live in extreme poverty.

Well, I can only imagine that it is different than it is here.
Extreme Poverty, means something different to someone accustomed to having a plush house and car as compared to someone who just want's to see their children not starve to death.

The world is so different wherever you go.

I once invited a Chinese person to America. He left my old forum.
I even offered to pay the plane ticket! To Hawaii!

He said the world sucked.(I'm paraphrasing his words.) I told him that; "the world may only suck in your localized region."

I never heard from him again.

 

[gravenewworld]

nope.


Well, I can only imagine that it is different than it is here.
Extreme Poverty, means something different to someone accustomed to having a plush house and car as compared to someone who just want's to see their children not starve to death.

The world is so different wherever you go.

I once invited a Chinese person to America. He left my old forum.
I even offered to pay the plane ticket! To Hawaii!

He said the world sucked.(I'm paraphrasing his words.) I told him that; "the world may only suck in your localized region."

I never heard from him again.

Extreme poverty has a definition:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/0,,contentMDK:20153855~menuPK:373757~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:336992,00.html


It is those living on roughly less than $1 per day. China has millions of people in this category.


Millions of people have mass migrated from rural areas in China to huge urban centers in hopes of escaping terrible poverty. The question now becomes who is going to grow all the food and farm the land to feed 1.2 billion people if everyone is leaving the terrible impoverished conditions in the countryside that tons of Chinese farmers have to live in everyday? The corruption and class conflicts in China make it almost impossible for thousands of people to escape impoverished conditions. Like the WSJ article pointed out, it is increasingly leading to more and more destabilization in more remote parts of the country.

 

[mheslep]

Military strength means nothing without high standards of living. A superpower must have them all.

Why?

...Why did you choose to ignore the fact that China is only ranked about 80-100 in the world in terms of GDP per capita? ...

Note that it's not meaningful to talk about 'military per capita' as a country needs only one. China's not comparable to G7 countries (yet) in terms of standard of living, but it's gross GDP certainly is and that may be all that's needed to build a super 'military' power. The soviets were a totalitarian system with failed economic system; the Chinese have (so far) maintained a ~ totalitarian political system w/ a highly successful economic system.

 

[OmCheeto]

Extreme poverty has a definition:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/0,,contentMDK:20153855~menuPK:373757~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:336992,00.html


It is those living on roughly less than $1 per day. China has millions of people in this category.


Millions of people have mass migrated from rural areas in China to huge urban centers in hopes of escaping terrible poverty. The question now becomes who is going to grow all the food and farm the land to feed 1.2 billion people if everyone is leaving the terrible impoverished conditions in the countryside that tons of Chinese farmers have to live in everyday? The corruption and class conflicts in China make it almost impossible for thousands of people to escape impoverished conditions. Like the WSJ article pointed out, it is increasingly leading to more and more destabilization in more remote parts of the country.

Hence. I will quote myself once again; "Have none but the Chinese been paying attention?"

 

[binzing]

Hmmm, why should we worry? So human rights abuse, horrendous pollution, and communism don't worry you?

 

[gravenewworld]

Why?

See North Korea.

Note that it's not meaningful to talk about 'military per capita' as a country needs only one. China's not comparable to G7 countries (yet) in terms of standard of living, but it's gross GDP certainly is and that may be all that's needed to build a super 'military' power. The soviets were a totalitarian system with failed economic system; the Chinese have (so far) maintained a ~ totalitarian political system w/ a highly successful economic system.

But total GDP means nothing, GDP in terms of per capita is always the much more better measurement of wealth and standard of living. You can only keep your people impoverished for so long until they revolt. Look at all of the examples in history like the French Revolution , the fall of the USSR, etc. Huge amounts of gross GDP are also worthless if it is not evenly distributed. In China, if you have ever been there, you have the SUPER wealthy and then you have the SUPER poor. There is a growing middle class, but even they are light years away in terms of wealth from the upper classes.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Military strength means nothing without high standards of living.

Uh, yeah it does mean something. It means you're a superpower if your military power is great enough.

A superpower must have them all.

Says who, you?

Why did you choose to ignore the fact that China is only ranked about 80-100 in the world in terms of GDP per capita?

Because I'm not trying to prove China is a superpower. You're trying to prove they can't be a superpower because of social issues.

Russia did have poverty and military strength, but what happened to them? They didn't achieve superpower status until the end of WW2 and were crumbled only a few decades later due in large part to their nonexistent economy and low standards of living.

The U.S. wasn't considered a superpower until after WWII either.

Poverty rates and standards of living simply are not things that define superpowers. You've just declared that one of the two countries for which the term was invented is not worthy of your personal standards for a superpower.

I think I hear the sound of an axe grinding…

Go ahead, make your point about there being poverty in China. No one is going to disagree with you. You don't have to invent some reason to shout “You can't handle the truth!”. I would have taken your opinion on the matter much more seriously if you hadn't contrived such a cheesy way to bring it up.

⚛​

 

[binzing]

Plus, look at the US. Now imagine that with 1 billion people! Need I say more?

 

[drankin]

I spent a week in Ningbo, across the bay from Shanghai. The sun never shines there due to the smog. Developement is huge but it's done by workers who live at the worksite and hang on bamboo scaffolding. They want all things "Western" in their own fashion over there. I never saw any hositility towards the West but there were a lot of folks trying to take me for my last cent when I tried to buy anything. The living conditions I saw were 3rd world. China is a power but not a "superpower" IMO. The are extremely dependent on the Western world. Without it they would be ruined. In a nearby business park that spanned several square miles, every major company in the world you could think of has a factory of some sort.

If they were to attack any Western country, they would be shooting themselves in the foot, if not cutting off both their legs off.

 

[mheslep]

See North Korea.

?? NK is dirt poor. Even if a country spends 70% of its GDP on the military if the GDP is nil then so is the military. See China. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html#Military" = $280Billion ('06). That's probably #2 or close to it.

But total GDP means nothing, GDP in terms of per capita is always the much more better measurement of wealth and standard of living. You can only keep your people impoverished for so long until they revolt. Look at all of the examples in history like the French Revolution , the fall of the USSR, etc. Huge amounts of gross GDP are also worthless ...

No. The Soviets never had a huge GDP. They bled the country so that a huge fraction of the economy was all military directed, the consequence of which was that even though the Soviet economy was a fraction of the size of the US the military spending of the two were roughly comparable. Caveat: this was true at least until the Reagan years when he said "I call and raise you $1 trillion." Soviets replied "glasnost!" and folded.

 

[binzing]

My point exactly drankin, as to why they need to not try and follow after the U.S. Pollution will only get worse if they do.(assuming worse is possible)

 

[russ_watters]

What do you mean here? I think to state that their development is "helping their people somewhat" is a gross underestimate. Also, what do you mean "at the expense of their people?" I have heard that China's development has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, which to be sure is no small feat. How has hundreds of millions of people raising out of poverty hurt the others? I'm pretty sure that the others have not gotten poorer because some of their neighbors have become richer.

There are a few problems with China's development as a result of their government (mentioned by others):

-They are utterly destroying their environment (which also kills people).
-Their labor laws are inadequate to put it mildly (which also kills people).
-Their government is harsh when dealing with political dissent (they kill people).

 

[DrClapeyron]

With all due respect, it sounds like you're working with information that's decades out of date. There isn't a debate about US and world investment in China, that investment has been going on strong since the 70's. At this point China is investing in other parts of the world itself.

And are you talking about India since independence from the British Empire?!? Do you have any idea how much the world and India have changed since then? India is very much a part of the world economy.

⚛​

There is a debate in this thread concerning investment in Chinese labor and resource. The power of the CHinese to manufacture rubber bands is huge but can they manufacture commercial jets or surface to air defense systems that compete on the global level? Not at this point but at which point?

India continues to manufacture textiles and receives the same industrial input when it was a colony, this continues because the isolationist policies people believe that were thrusted upon them by the likes of Ghandi. The global impact of India continues to be its production of textiles not automobiles or industrial chemicals. That is exactly how much India has changed.

 

[Economist]

There are a few problems with China's development as a result of their government (mentioned by others):

-They are utterly destroying their environment (which also kills people).

Again, there is a trade-off. How many people is their environmental problems killing and how many people was poverty killing? As well as other questions, such as, will them becoming more prosperous help with innovations and technologies that actually help the environment?

-Their labor laws are inadequate to put it mildly (which also kills people).

I don't know about labor laws, but I generally opposed most labor laws so I don't see this as a huge issue (but I realize most disagree).

-Their government is harsh when dealing with political dissent (they kill people).

I agree. China is becoming more economically free, but they are not politically free. Freedom across the board is very important and I do not condone their political system that allows them to kill dissenters.

 

[drankin]

My point exactly drankin, as to why they need to not try and follow after the U.S. Pollution will only get worse if they do.(assuming worse is possible)

I don't think that's entirely fair, and it's not just the US they are following. Most European countries have a hand in the labor over there. They are following who they want to follow. Industrialization has a cost to any civilization. They could enact pollution reduction practices if the government had the forsight to enforce it but I imagine they are more interested in the short term profits and competing with other 3rd world countries. It's their choice on how to handle it. It's by know means our fault they choose to take short-cuts instead of learning from our environmental mistakes of the past.

 

[Economist]

Ah. hahahhaaha! We live on a finite world.
How can resources not be fixed?

Hahahaha!

Trees are "finite," but none of us seem to worry about not having enough for paper. Not to mention, even though trees are finite, we have plenty of people who intentionally grow trees in order to make a living. In other words, we have many trees precisely because people value trees enough to pay others to plant them.

Likewise, we have plenty of cows, horses, cats, dogs, etc, precisely because people can have property rights on these animals and that people can make some profit off of them. In fact, the problem with many endangered species is that it's illegal to own them (in other words, there are no property rights for them).

What about food? Isn't corn, milk, wheat, strawberries, etc finite? However, are you worried about their not being enough to go around? Drugs such as tobacco and marijuana are finite. Do you think that people will quit smoking these in the next couple hundred years because there is not enough to go around?

Notice that "natural" and "finite" are not the same thing as "fixed" (in other words, "natural" and "finite" can still be "variable"). Notice that human beings are able to control (at least to some degree) the amount of many natural resources.

Yes, with oil there are some differences. However, it has also been pointed out that there are many untapped oil reserves. Why has no one decided to get this oil out of the ground in some places? Precisely because it is "not worth it" (yet) to do so. Some oil reserves are more expensive to extract, and therefore the current payoff is not high enough to warrant extracting it. As oil becomes more and more scarce, and if consumers are demanding it at nearly the same rate, then the price will rise enough in order to actually make it profitable to extract the oil at these places. I am under the impression that the statistics that you cite (which state that oil will be gone in 50 years) make some mistakes. For one thing, I think they don't account for all of the untapped oil reserves. Furthermore, they assume that people will use oil at the exact same rate. Oil is obviously running out, however I just don't know how accurate the 50 years stat is.

To put it briefly, I'm just not as worried as you are about the oil situation. First of all, if oil is quickly depleting then prices will rise and people will surely substitute away from oil. For example, people will move closer to work, carpool more, ride their bike more, use public transportation more, drive less often for entertainment reasons, etc. Second, if oil is becoming more and more expensive, entrepenuers will surely be able to make very large profits by inventing alternatives. In other words, you're likely to see some great innovation in this industry.

 

[fourier jr]

I'll repeat myself again, have you even ever been to China? And I'm not talking about just to the major cities in China like Beijing, but have you ever even been to the countryside in China where people live in unbelievable squalor? No? The only reason you think that China has become a superpower is because of only what the media reports. I have passed by some of the places mention in the article below, and let me tell you it is nothing more than a hell hole on Earth.

From a WSJ article entitled

The Truth About China

What are the chances that an American would read an article in the Wall Street Journal called "The Truth About America" showing the appalling state of poverty & easily-treatable health problems that people have (but which aren't covered under their health plans) in the world's wealthiest country? Not likely at all.

 

[drankin]

What are the chances that an American would read an article in the Wall Street Journal called "The Truth About America" showing the appalling state of poverty & easily-treatable health problems that people have (but which aren't covered under their health plans) in the world's wealthiest country? Not likely at all.

Not to be antagonistic, but what are these health problems that are easily treated and not covered by any health plans? Other than obesity which can be treated very effectively by ones own lifestyle.

 

[ShawnD]

The next car I was considering buying is made in China.

gg buddy

 

[drankin]

gg buddy

brutal!

 

[CaptainQuasar]

There is a debate in this thread concerning investment in Chinese labor and resource. The power of the CHinese to manufacture rubber bands is huge but can they manufacture commercial jets or surface to air defense systems that compete on the global level? Not at this point but at which point?

India continues to manufacture textiles and receives the same industrial input when it was a colony, this continues because the isolationist policies people believe that were thrusted upon them by the likes of Ghandi. The global impact of India continues to be its production of textiles not automobiles or industrial chemicals. That is exactly how much India has changed.

You're objecting that they might be making jets and defense systems that only compete domestically in the largest country in the world?

And of course their space program is competing on a global level, isn't it? What are you talking about pencils and rubber bands for when they've put a man in space? That's like saying the economy of the United States is simply a big burger-flipping service industry economy.

China has what will be the largest and most productive hydroelectric dam in the world when it goes online, the Three Gorges Dam. They're also the only country in the world to be actively developing one of the most advanced nuclear reactor designs in the world, pebble-bed reactor technology. As well as being in the process of constructing more nuclear power plants based upon current technology than any other nation in the world.

Their stock market is fully electronic (the NYSE is not). According to James McGregor's http://www.onebillioncustomers.com/" (2007) China has the most advanced national telecommunications infrastructure in the world.

Why are you trying to convince people that all they make is pencils and rubber bands? That's not even true for what they export, they make all kinds of high-tech electronics and advanced industrial products that are used all over the world.

As far as India, as a software engineer I can tell you that they're a world leader in software development and engineering. In fact they've been recognized for national excellence in software quality engineering (process engineering, basically.)

For another example, I believe that India is the only place that has a functioning OTEC power plant (a new technology that generates electricity based upon the temperature gradient between the deep ocean and the surface of the ocean.) They also make lots of other things besides textiles, like cars and agrochemicals, and they have the Bollywood film industry, the largest film industry in the world. I'm sure I'd have more examples if I read as much about them as I do China.

I repeat, you're working with something like a 1981 understanding of these countries' economies.

⚛​

 

[drankin]

I guess by definition, they are in fact a world power:

world power
–noun a nation, organization, or institution so powerful that it is capable of influencing or changing the course of world events.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1880–85]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

 

[drankin]

Wow, this is interesting:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330320,00.html

 

[edward]

Not to be antagonistic, but what are these health problems that are easily treated and not covered by any health plans? Other than obesity which can be treated very effectively by ones own lifestyle.

Most health plans love to cover the easily treated health problems. What people don't know about are the agreements between the doctors and the HMO's that restrict the doctor form telling patients about other viable treatment options for more serious illnesses.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E6D81439F932A15751C1A963958260

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Yeah, also things which are easily treated but expensive to treat.

⚛​

 

[drankin]

Well, I don't know what these "things" are you are talking about but we are getting off topic.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Health problems which are easily treated. Note edward's comment immediately above mine, also talking about easily treated health problems. Sorry if my wild non sequitur was confusing, I'm a bit of a loose cannon.

You asked that question, it's really not kosher of you to call out responses to it as off topic.

⚛​

 

[OmCheeto]

gg buddy

The only people I know that have been in car crashes have been drunks, retards, on a cell phone, or been under the age of 21. If you pay attention, you can see them coming.

With the exception of my mom who learned to drive at the age of 41, two weeks before my dad said she had to drive the Al-Can highway in November. Now that was a ride! (I was 4)

Gads. What does this have to do with China?

Life is going to be a roller coaster for a couple of years I guess.
Listen to the old folks.

"People laugh at things they do not understand"; Goethe
My Russian acquaintance told me that about 4 hours ago.
We were talking about something.

 

[Riogho]

Who cares if china a super power? If t the United States focuses more on defending it national borders instead placing its armed forces in other countries, then we should not worry about another nation invading and taken over our country. Whats wrong with just being a 2nd rate world power? Canada is not a superpower and no other country has tried to invade it; in addition , I believe their education system for math and science is rated in the top ten among nations in the world along with Japan. I would like to hear your thoughts.

CAUSE THEIR FRIKKIN COMMIES!
#@#$%^$


LOWELT EYE