[HOZ]

Originally posted by Hakan@Jun 12 2005, 05:40 PM
This article is high on opinion, pomp, and conjecture while low on substance. The substance of the matter is that China's has experienced double digit economic growth for the past 15 years. No country on Earth rivals that. All economic projections point to this trend continuing or slightly abating but still remaining strong. They are the globe's manufacturing zone with no other competitor in any place to unseat them. In an global economy built on cheap short cycled consumer goods, that puts China in a relatively stable economic footing. While this strategy is not likely to make all Chinese people rich or even make it a developed country it is bound to keep increasing the size of their economy which is all that matters in global economic relations.

Steyn points out that the political machine is ill-equiped to deal with this growth because it is somewhat totalitarian. Perhaps. But there is already a strong reform movement within the party which is benefitting greatly from the market transition. Steyn laughably refers to China as communist which is patently false. They have one of the most intricate market economies in the world. What seems to bother him is that their economy is still shielded from global competition but that hardly makes it 'communist.' All succesful developing countries have shielded their economy and have very slowly liberalized them. Does that make Japan or Korean communist too? The Chinese have learned their history lessons and have seen what fast-paced liberalization did their their south-eastern neighbors.

The political freedoms are certainly problematic but Steyn seems to think that they come at the cost of economic growth. That sure hasn't been the case for the past 15 years. Authoritarian government can become hegemons look at Nazi Germany or communist Russia. What's to think that China cannot as well? Also what's the think that China will not liberalize as median-incomes in China continue to rise? The richer people become the more they demand accountability for their tax revenues and the like. Change is happening in China, just slowly.

History can teach us other lessons as well. If you look at the list of global hegemons you'll see interesting trends. Most noticeably, hegemons have a life cycle of about 100 years. Spain, France, Britain all dominated for about 100 years. The United States is in it's 75th year or so and has been showing signs of decline all reminiscent of the previous hegemons. Who is going to step into that void if the US does decline? The only plausible country at this point is China.

Disagree completely. He plainly points out 2 different Asian countries on the fast track to development and points out that China will not be the one to shake the world. Simply because it's totalitarian leadership will not allow the freedoms needed to make it so. As wel China has never been a truly single country in the sense we know it today. China is simple a modern manafestation. If true freedom came to China do you think Tibet would stay? Do you think Cantonese speaking (Hong Kong and surrounding area) would stil stick with the old guard MAndarins? There is 8 separate 'Chinese' people.

They certianly could, with the acception of Tibet, stay together if democratic freedoms (along with a wack of others) were implemented...as shown by India!

But then India has a history of democracy and freedom. China doesn't.

China has only one way to grow. Getting double digit growth from zero is nothing. It certainly doesn't mean they are on there way. Japan was suppse to supplant the US...remember? Maybe not

I'll bet on the India century.

FA: Which neighbour has China not invaded? Korea, Russia, Vietnam, India/Pakistan. Working on Taiwan now. Not sure what you are saying other than you hope a commie country wins