Why should we care if china become a world power?

[mheslep]

-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?

Economist: if you are proposing that the environmental destruction occurring in China as part of a growing economy is an aspect of free market economics that would have the blessings of a Hayek or a Friedman, you are mistaken.

 

[Economist]

Economist: if you are proposing that the environmental destruction occurring in China as part of a growing economy is an aspect of free market economics that would have the blessings of a Hayek or a Friedman, you are mistaken.

Hayek and Friedman both realize that you may need some environmental regulation, precisely because of weakly defined property rights. However, Hayek and Freidman also realize the very real trade-off between pollution and prosperity. Furthermore, I doubt you would find Hayek and Friedman very worried about the current environmental problems in China if they were alive.

 

[russ_watters]

Again, there is a trade-off. How many people is their environmental problems killing and how many people was poverty killing?

Yes, there is a trade-off. But with just a little bit of effort, they could avoid a lot of those negative consequences without significantly reducing the positive ones.

As well as other questions, such as, will them becoming more prosperous help with innovations and technologies that actually help the environment?

Becoming more prosperous doesn't have anything to do with developing innovations and technologies that help the environemnt: they've already been invented and the Chinese choose not to use them. Russia, because of the USSR, is a toxic wasteland and China, because of its government, is going to follow.

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).

How much of the history of that have you learned? The standard of living issue gets very muddy when you look back at the industrial revolution. Some people got very rich and a lot of people lived just miserable lives. Fires decimated major cities, boiler explosions killed thousands, black lung disease tens of thousands. I do think many such regulations go too far, but I suspect that health and safety standards have as much to do with the doubling of the average lifespan in the past century as industrialization and medical advances. I'm an engineer, a profession that started as a trade (like carpentry). Part of the development of engineering into a licensed profession includes criminal and financial liability for the consequences of poor designs.

Now perhaps you prefer the Ron Paul approach (punishment via lawsuit vs prevention via regulation), but a lot of businessmen are greedy and dumb. It is disturbing how many simply don't understand the concepts of risk assessment and ROI. That method will not prevent the type of environment that existed prior to enacting of such standards.

 

[mheslep]

Hayek and Friedman both realize that you may need some environmental regulation, precisely because of weakly defined property rights. However, Hayek and Freidman also realize the very real trade-off between pollution and prosperity. Furthermore, I doubt you would find Hayek and Friedman very worried about the current environmental problems in China if they were alive.

Not a chance, at least in Friedman's case, who was around long enough to know something of the bio - environment. Those assertions ignore Friedman's main point hammered home again and again: that people be allowed to make decisions freely, without coercion, either by your neighbors or the state. They certainly are many poor people improving their lot somewhat in now in China, but they have no zero power to say anything about the suffocating puke they live in. If they had the power to sue the factory upstream, or at least petition the government, they might well do it, or not if the pollution is not that bad. Yes pollution is a part of economic activity, but that doesn't imply its an external factor that people must simply live with. They should get to choose. Friedman would be the last guy to believe he could decide for them that they're better off choking to death since they could buy shoes. He'd be the first to point out that those people are not free to choose.

 

[mheslep]

This is an interesting post, so I am jumping in here

How much of the history of that have you learned? The standard of living issue gets very muddy when you look back at the industrial revolution. Some people got very rich and a lot of people lived just miserable lives. Fires decimated major cities, boiler explosions killed thousands, black lung disease tens of thousands.

Yes, but be careful here. If there's common misunderstanding of the history of the time I think the scale tilts the other way:a myth perpetuated by government and baby kissing politicians that it solved these problems. The great private nonprofit hospitals (e.g. Our Lady of the ...) were all founded in the 19th century. The saying back in the 1920's was that the "very poor can get medicine, the very rich can get good medicine, the people in between are ... squeezed". The Red Cross was founded in the 19th century, so was the Boy Scouts, Carnegie's 1500 public libraries in the 1900's, an on and on. My point is don't rely on Upton Sinclair for a one book take away of the time.

I do think many such regulations go too far, but I suspect that health and safety standards have as much to do with the doubling of the average lifespan in the past century as industrialization and medical advances.

Id grant you some, maybe, but govt standards doubling the lifespan? I highly doubt it. I suspect something like Ralph Nader's 1965 Unsafe at any speed, in which he destroyed the Corvair, would be a common rally point for the govt H & S position. Nader said:

For over half a century the auto[] has brought death, injury, and the most inestimable sorrow and deprivation to millions of people. With Media-like intensity, this mass trauma began rising sharply four years ago reflecting new and unexpected ravages...

But:
-nowhere does Nader present auto' accident fatality rates over time for the Corvair vs other automobiles
-Nader said auto accidents were rising. Oh no! So was the population, so was the number of cars. In proportion to population, fatality rates in '65 were half of '20 levels.
-With its rear engine placement, the Corvair was indeed more prone to some kinds of accidents. It was also less prone to others.
-US Dept of Transportation later showed that the Corvair "is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles" [1]

Now perhaps you prefer the Ron Paul approach (punishment via lawsuit vs prevention via regulation), but a lot of businessmen are greedy and dumb.

Yep, many are greedy and dumb. But so are many government officials and bureaucrats, and they largely don't get fired or go out of business for fouling up! The US has 21 million people employed by the government (2001, civilians only) or almost http://www.independentsector.org/PDFs/npemployment.pdf" . How have we possibly come to believe that these just as greedy and dumb masses on the govt. payroll are somehow enlightened to provide the best route to our health and safety?

That method will not prevent the type of environment that existed prior to enacting of such standards.

There's evidence that private property rights did provide an alternative in the early history of the country(until the ~1840s), later courts stopped recognizing the claims. There's also evidence that current regulations are doing harm: Vaccine companies all leaving the market, had enough, etc.

[1] Thomas Sowell 'Applied Economics'

 

[||spoon||]

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.

Actually i believe quite a lot of people ARE suffering. I am no expert but i believe that due to China's growing economy the prices of everyday essential items (food in particular) has risen dramatically. China has a large population of people that could only just afford food before this widespread general price rise for goods... How are these people supposed to feed and support themselves and their families now? I would say that this may be recognised as "at the expense of others".

 

[drankin]

Actually i believe quite a lot of people ARE suffering. I am no expert but i believe that due to China's growing economy the prices of everyday essential items (food in particular) has risen dramatically. China has a large population of people that could only just afford food before this widespread general price rise for goods... How are these people supposed to feed and support themselves and their families now? I would say that this may be recognised as "at the expense of others".

As a Scottish man who had been living in China for 10yrs told me in a pub in Ningbo, "noone here is starving, this is communism". Surely he was speaking of the local area (and all the "fake" beggars), but his point is that the government is ultimately responsible for feeding everyone in China. How true this is, I really don't know. He had been there awhile though and I hadn't seen anyone starving or in dire need. Communism + Capitalism seems to work over there. Noone really owns any property, or even themselves I suppose, everything and everyone belongs to China.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

The famines during the last century in China were mostly due to stupid, arrogant things that Mao did in running the country like he was playing with dolls. I'm pretty sure that the expansion of the economy during the last couple of decades has made famines and shortages less likely to happen, not exacerbated those sorts of problems.

⚛​

 

[Art]

As a Scottish man who had been living in China for 10yrs told me in a pub in Ningbo, "noone here is starving, this is communism". Surely he was speaking of the local area (and all the "fake" beggars), but his point is that the government is ultimately responsible for feeding everyone in China. How true this is, I really don't know. He had been there awhile though and I hadn't seen anyone starving or in dire need. Communism + Capitalism seems to work over there. Noone really owns any property, or even themselves I suppose, everything and everyone belongs to China.

You must have had this conversation 20 years ago. These days China is no more communist than the US and has far fewer social programs to help the needy. It has all the worst elements of extreme capitalism without any of the controls such as multi-party elections and so corruption is rampant with all the problems that entails re product safety, individual rights etc..

There is one small town which practices communism and it is so rare it has become a tourist destination for young Chinese to see how their parents used to live.

 

[mheslep]

You must have had this conversation 20 years ago. These days China is no more communist than the US and has far fewer social programs to help the needy.

Communism historically has had two parts: political and and economic. China set the economy loose, but politically it is still very much a totalitarian communist state. To be in political power you must be a member of the communist party, period. No opposition allowed, as any of the survivors of Tiananmen Square will tell you. Furthermore, I wouldn't blame the troubles in China on Capitalism anymore than Id blame the plow for oppressing the slave lashed to it; rather I'd blame the lack of any democratic opposition. Example: Thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam" project was made possible by the capital funding of $23B, but also displaced 1.5 million people and AFAICT is an environmental disaster[*] Those 1.5 million were displaced not by capitalism, but by the communist government. They never had a choice.* Couldn't help but comment on the size! Just saw the generating capacity of the thing will be 23GW, 4-5x the size of the largest US plant at Palo Verde.

 

[Art]

China is a totalitarian dictatorship. Communism is an ideology centred on common ownership.

The dictatorship that governs China may have kept the name but they are no more communist than the Nazi Socialist Party were socialists.

 

[drankin]

You must have had this conversation 20 years ago. These days China is no more communist than the US and has far fewer social programs to help the needy. It has all the worst elements of extreme capitalism without any of the controls such as multi-party elections and so corruption is rampant with all the problems that entails re product safety, individual rights etc..

There is one small town which practices communism and it is so rare it has become a tourist destination for young Chinese to see how their parents used to live.

I was there during Christmas 2005.

 

[mheslep]

China is a totalitarian dictatorship. Communism is an ideology centered on common ownership.
The dictatorship that governs China may have kept the name but they are no more communist than the Nazi Socialist Party were socialists.

Granted the ownership piece has changed but China was totalitarian dictatorship under Mao as well. So by this logic you're saying China has never been communist?

As I said it's a socio and economic question. One could argue ownership was never common in China under Mao, except in commonality of deprivation.

 

[Astronuc]

China is a totalitarian dictatorship. Communism is an ideology centred on common ownership.

The cavaets of that however is that the people aren't smart enough to run the economy or utilitize what they own, so a few people, i.e. the leaders of the communist party will do it for them. At best the 'communist' systems have been oligarchies, not true communist systems.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

These days China is no more communist than the US and has far fewer social programs to help the needy.

China's social programs as a whole undoubtedly have a smaller combined budget of those in the U.S. but I wouldn't be surprised if there are numerically more of them. There were all kinds of quasi-political quasi-social-program organizations set up in the last century and the Chinese culturally love fellowship societies.

I don't think it's accurate to say that China is no more communist than the U.S. Though greatly diminished the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%95%E4%BD%8D" 单位 system of state-organized work units is still in place and still employs, pays pensions to, and plays mother-and-father to many people there. Up until 2003 a worker still needed the permission of his danwei to get married.

⚛​

 

[mjsd]

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?

I don't think the "US imperialists" would settle for 2nd place... being 1st means you have the ability to control everyone else (in a sense). So clearly, (in their opinion at least) the rise of China is a "real threat" to that dominance in the longer term.