Chinese century?

[HOZ]

China hasn't invented or discovered anything of significance in half a millennium, but the careless assumption that intellectual property is something to be stolen rather than protected shows why. If you're a resource-poor nation (as China is), long-term prosperity comes from liberating the creative energies of your people - and Beijing still has no interest in that. If a blogger attempts to use the words "freedom" or "democracy" or "Taiwan independence" on Microsoft's new Chinese internet portal, he gets the message: "This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech." How pathetic is that? Not just for the Microsoft-spined Corporation, which should be ashamed of itself, but for the Chinese government, which pretends to be a world power but is terrified of words.


India, by contrast, with much less ballyhoo, is advancing faster than China toward a fully-developed economy - one that creates its own ideas. Small example: there are low-fare airlines that sell £40 one-way cross-country air tickets from computer screens at Indian petrol stations. No one would develop such a system for China, where internal travel is still tightly controlled by the state. But, because they respect their own people as a market, Indian businesses are already proving nimbler at serving other markets. The return on investment capital is already much better in India than in China.

Who can stop the rise and rise of China? The communists, of course

You may have to register to read!

[8 Ball]

Very interesting read. Most people I talk to buy into the hype that China, within the next 20-50 years will be the worlds biggest super-power. Interesting to see a different spin.

[Hakan]

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.

[FlamesAddiction]

I wonder if Steyn would really prefer that China had a more open and free economic system. Just imagine that China had a system like that of the U.S. and everything that came with it. Economic power, global influence, and ultimately vast military might... Sure, maybe China would be more free and would contribute more, but is that a good thing?

Would Steyn like it if China started building military bases all over the world, and if they started invading countries in every corner of the globe to be able to protect economic interests and grow even more? Somehow, I think Steyn would prefer things just how they are.

[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

[flamingchina]

Another thing which many chinaphiles seem to forget is the so called "peasant problem" Mainly that out of a 1.3 billion person population, 700-800 million of them are well, peasants. China needs to do something with them, and keep them happy. If you look at China's history, most all of the revolutions, the changes, were because the peseants wanted them to happen. Currently, they are failry happy, although bothered by the rampat corruption that is found in low level officials, and a sense of Beijing ignoring their plight.
If this grows to big,problems may result. What's holding it back right now is the sense of hope and growth China has. I fear the next thing that will hold it back is an increase in nationalistic feelings.
That said the communists are about the most competent rulers (since good old Mao died) that China's had since the mongols..

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by HOZ@Jun 13 2005, 10:09 AM

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

You'll have to explain that comment to me. Obviously you are misunderstanding my point.

All I said is that I prefer China to be contained in their little sphere of influence than becoming a global military power like the U.S. If they became more free and therefore, more influential, it doesn't mean they would be less aggressive. It DOES however mean that they would have a lot more resources to assert their power over others. I would much prefer that they do not explore U.S. style economic freedom and that they stay in a pseudo-dark age. With India, they at least have a history of being less aggressive.

If they became more powerful, it is quite likely that they would want to project power all over the globe to protect their interests; not just Vietnam, Taiwan, Korea, etc..., but everywhere like the U.S. does. Who wants that? Do we want Chinese bases in the Middle East, Africa, and South America? If shunning totalitarianism means becoming more powerful, then I hope they stay totalitarian.

What would you prefer:

An aggressive, communist, totalitarian China with limited ability to project its power, or an aggressive, capitalist, democratic China with limitless resources to project its power? Like I said, if they were to be free does not mean they would be more friendly.


On Tibet: Would they really want independence? I read in National Geographic that well of 50% of the population of Tibet are not even Tibetan anymore. They are people who moved from the east.

[Agamemnon]

This 'essay' (article?) seems to be the norm from this author.

'China isn't free, so it won't do well'. The premise ignores the current macro-economic forecasts by most of the world's financial institutions, who predict continued strong growth in China... regardless of what Steyn's reality articulates. Just because he wants something to happen (democratic/capitalist/American domination of the world), doesn't mean he can prove that it will, or that he's right simply because he wrote it.

The guy is a great right-wing columnist though, represents the ideology quite well.

[tjinaz]

I see his point. With the tight government control they will never be able to be as adaptable as the US or India. Restriction dampens creativity. The reason the Indians and the Americans do so well is that anyone can have that million dollar idea and get rich. Consequently they are self motivating. With China you would have the million dollar idea and the state would give you a nice t-shirt while their cronies get rich. Not much motivation there.

[Tron_fdc]

Actually, there are quite a few millionaires in China. 236 000 of them to be EXACT . There are a lot of people that started their own businesses and are living the lifestyle of many rich Americans, along with the same luxuries you would find in affluent American neighbourhoods. The state is relaxing a lot of controls that it had in place through the last few decades and allowing a lot more personal wealth, but they are still maintaining a lot of the old style communist principles (media censorship, etc) to protect some of their "fundamentals".

Asia is also experiencing the fastest growth in millionaires, faster than any other region on earth. I found an article on that here.

I haven't been to India so I can't speak first hand about the pace of development there, but from what I have been seeing in China over the last 4 or 5 years along with what I have read and studied on the subject I would be quite surprised if India is on their level, or at least not yet.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Jun 13 2005, 08:35 PM
I see his point. With the tight government control they will never be able to be as adaptable as the US or India. Restriction dampens creativity. The reason the Indians and the Americans do so well is that anyone can have that million dollar idea and get rich. Consequently they are self motivating. With China you would have the million dollar idea and the state would give you a nice t-shirt while their cronies get rich. Not much motivation there.

Not much depth here. You're completely ignoring the 'non-theory' element of China's economy, which is a rapidly growing private-sector with public ties. Believe it or not, there are many, many successful entrepeneurs there right now making boatloads of money. This also ignores China's (so far) successful economic growth model. Currently, they're growth totally outstrips ours. How much less creative could they be? While they are draconian, they are not Stalinist.

I wouldn't be surprised to see China turn corporate before it turned democratic. Several of the new (and massively profitable) industry leaders are becoming as powerful as the political leaders. Though, it should be noted, without the consent of the political leaders, it's hard to become an industry leader. Once you're there though...

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Jun 13 2005, 10:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Jun 13 2005, 10:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-HOZ@Jun 13 2005, 10:09 AM

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#

You'll have to explain that comment to me. Obviously you are misunderstanding my point.

All I said is that I prefer China to be contained in their little sphere of influence than becoming a global military power like the U.S. If they became more free and therefore, more influential, it doesn't mean they would be less aggressive. It DOES however mean that they would have a lot more resources to assert their power over others. I would much prefer that they do not explore U.S. style economic freedom and that they stay in a pseudo-dark age. With India, they at least have a history of being less aggressive.

If they became more powerful, it is quite likely that they would want to project power all over the globe to protect their interests; not just Vietnam, Taiwan, Korea, etc..., but everywhere like the U.S. does. Who wants that? Do we want Chinese bases in the Middle East, Africa, and South America? If shunning totalitarianism means becoming more powerful, then I hope they stay totalitarian.

What would you prefer:

An aggressive, communist, totalitarian China with limited ability to project its power, or an aggressive, capitalist, democratic China with limitless resources to project its power? Like I said, if they were to be free does not mean they would be more friendly.


On Tibet: Would they really want independence? I read in National Geographic that well of 50% of the population of Tibet are not even Tibetan anymore. They are people who moved from the east. [/b][/quote]
So what gives the U.S. the similar right?
That's why people hate Imperial America all over the world. It sounds so hypocritical for the U.S. to somehow know and dictate what is "BEST" for everyone and how THEY should be the global policers, enforcers, and protectors, while obviously serving their own interests. I trust Chinese leaders to be more rational than to abuse those powers, but if they start to expand, you know the U.S. will be there to oppose it.

But isn't it hateful and hypocritical to openly argue to keep people (the largest population on earth) in the dark, depriving them of the benefits of modernity and the chance to liberalize? I can't believe you are actually arguing it is better for people to suffer under totalitarianism if it keeps them in their corner of the world, versus being allowed to grow into a democracy which could empower them? Man...

[Hack&Lube]

I also have no time to dig out the essay about why China's ecomonic growth is better sustained under the centralized leadership.

But basically, do you want Russia to happen all over again? Look, here's democracy, here's capitalism, we'll privatize everything, and ...oh damn...
No rule of law, chaos, cronism, corruption, warlord businessmen, tyrant industrialists, monopolies, extortion, shortages (again), dwindling power, and a dwindling economy.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Hack&Lube@Jun 14 2005, 05:07 AM

So what gives the U.S. the similar right?
That's why people hate Imperial America all over the world. It sounds so hypocritical for the U.S. to somehow know and dictate what is "BEST" for everyone and how THEY should be the global policers, enforcers, and protectors, while obviously serving their own interests. I trust Chinese leaders to be more rational than to abuse those powers, but if they start to expand, you know the U.S. will be there to oppose it.

But isn't it hateful and hypocritical to openly argue to keep people (the largest population on earth) in the dark, depriving them of the benefits of modernity and the chance to liberalize? I can't believe you are actually arguing it is better for people to suffer under totalitarianism if it keeps them in their corner of the world, versus being allowed to grow into a democracy which could empower them? Man...

Nothing gives the U.S. a "right" to do it either, but they do and they will. I'd rather have just the U.S. doing than both. That would lead to an inevitable global confrontation.

And quite honestly, I would much rather have the U.S. doing it than China. It might be hypocritical, but aren't we all in some respect? I would prefer to have the U.S. projecting it's politcal, economic, and cultural influence over me. Trust me, I am no U.S. apologist, but given the choice of Chinese influence and American influence - I would pick American. I don't think I could stand to live in a regimented society that puts so many limits on individuality. We have to deal with that enough in our ultra-consumerist society, I wouldn't want it state sanctioned.