China -- the next superpower?

[Pangloss]

We've kinda beat around this bush a couple of times in other threads, so I thought it might be interesting to have it in its own thread.

 

Just to kick it off, this was the news today, based on a new survey which says that the overweight and obesity percentages in China have been steadily climbing since the onset of modern capitalism.

 

http://english.people.com.cn/200410/13/eng20041013_160102.html

 

While the percentages may be lower in the US, there are so MANY people in China that they end up having almost as many overweight/obese people as the US has in its population!

 

Often we've heard it said that the Chinese have as many people in their middle class as Americans have in their entire population. So this is kind of an amusing (albeit also serious) twist to that theme. Chinese middle class families are now showing their new status not only by buying an automobile, but by... well... acquiring heavier furniture. (cof)

[john5746]

I think China will be the next superpower. India has a chance, but they are missing a real blue collar class.

 

If China can continue to shed communism without chaos and avoid a conflict with the US, then I think they will emerge from this century on top.

[Pangloss]

Just to spur conversation a bit....

 

Another thing I think is interesting about this is that it drives home a bit of a nail in the coffin of the long-standing American perception that democracy/freedom = capitalism = success. Here we have a country that is showing us that you don't need democracy to have capitalism, and you don't need democracy to have economic success in the post-Keynsian world.

 

It's a very strong perception here -- kids grow up believing this. And yet it's never really been true, it's just that the signs of it not being true were fairly complex and mostly negative, and largely ignored. For example, Americans see the Soviet Union style planned economy as being different from what the US was doing at the time, but in fact that's really not the case -- we had a planned economy as well. And since Reagan, *everyone* has moved to more of a market-oriented economy. (Lots of good examples in South America too, where it was not unusual to see brutal dictators on the cutting edge of market economics.)

 

Perception is a funny thing. I think a lot of Americans today are wondering how China could be becoming successful, since it's a "communism". What I've learned is that that's like saying my car is fast because it's blue.

[john5746]

It also brings up the fact that government can and has helped the economics of our country. Many think government can't do anything right and everything needs to be market based.

 

I do think government is too big and needs to get smaller, but to say it can't do anything about the economy other than get out of the way is wrong.

 

I think China is improving despite being communist. If it were not communist, they would engulf our economy easily.

[Sayonara]

I think China is improving despite being communist. If it were not communist, they would engulf our economy easily.

I don't think the "despite" works in there. They could probably crush your economy now tbh.

 

Don't forget America has been conditioned to believe "Communism = failure" for at least half a century, when it clearly isn't true.

[Pangloss]

Which doesn't (by itself) mean it = success either, of course. But you're absolutely right, it doesn't = failure. The Soviet Union failed because of poor economic and political policies.

 

By the way, if the United States fails some day it won't be because capitalism = failure, or democracy = failure. But I imagine some of the history books will record it that way. It just seems to be human nature.

[Sayonara]

By the way, if the United States fails some day it won't be because capitalism = failure, or democracy = failure.

Unless it is, in which case it will be.

 

lol

[bloodhound]

like sayo said. most pple have been conditioned to think communism = failure. I for example done even know what exactly communism is and how it works. All that propganda has been fed into me by watching Hollywood B movies.

[1veedo]

Communism isnt a bad government; its structured very well. Basically, everybody works the same and gets paid the same. Everything you buy is through government, hens a closed market. The problem is that the world is pretty much open market. Communism isnt oppressive, it can be, like democracy, but communism itself can be run democratic.

 

There’s much more to it then that, but the government itself does not equal failure. Actually, middle class citizens in China have higher standards of living then in the US. (In the developed areas of course, some of china is still ‘village’ when you go inland enough)

 

Personally, I dont like communism. Though I dont like the concept of a president, I like an open market. Communism is just too easy to abuse if it isnt set up with a proper constitution and democratic policies.

[Pangloss]

Personally, I dont like communism. Though I dont like the concept of a president, I like an open market.

 

Not to pick on you or anything, but this is kinda what I was talking about above. People fall into this trap of thinking that non-democratic governments must automatically, by their nature, not have an open market.

 

So I'll ask you this: Can you give me any examples of a market that's more open than China?

 

China's free trade zones alone would seem to be contrary to your position.

[Sayonara]

The way I read 1veedo's post, that is what he would attribute China's success to.

 

Communist philosophy + open market = teh win.

[blike]

Here we have a country that is showing us that you don't need democracy to have capitalism, and you don't need democracy to have economic success in the post-Keynsian world.

It does seem the more Westernized China becomes, the stronger they become, however.

[Sayonara]

Correlation != causation. You know that.

 

What would be funny is if they went uber-capitalist all the way, and fell flat on their faces.

 

Well, I say "funny"... I actually mean "interesting", of course.

[john5746]

There’s much more to it then that' date=' but the government itself does not equal failure. Actually, middle class citizens in China have higher standards of living then in the US. (In the developed areas of course, some of china is still ‘village’ when you go inland enough)[/quote']

 

Please explain this. Do you mean China middle class actually has better purchasing power? I might believe Japan, not China.

 

I think Facism has proven to be a very effective government system. Absolute power will take the country in one direction or the other very quickly. This doesn't mean it is a good system.

 

Communism is on the way out. China will get rid of it, hopefully without too much strife.

[Pangloss]

Do you mean China middle class actually has better purchasing power? I might believe Japan, not China.

 

You'd *better* believe it. Because it's already affecting you. Directly.

 

China's purchasing power has become astonishing. This is due in part to a truly prodigious amount of foreign loan capital. One year ago Japan was the second-highest consumer of oil, at around five-point-something million barrels per day. It became China about six months ago. Within a couple of years they'll likely surpass America's 20 million bpd. That's because they have 300 million middle-class citizens (more than America's total population), and the measure of what constitutes "middle class" is -- you guessed it -- car ownership.

 

Why do you think the price of oil is going up? The capacity to produce an additional 15 million barrels per day does not presently exist, nor has it been demonstrated that it can even be developed in a reasonable time frame. (People talk about running out of oil, but that's not the immediate problem at all. We're closing in on the event that the oil industry has feared for half a century -- the so-called "turnover" point, where demand finally exceeds supply.)

 

But it's not just oil. Ask anybody in manufacturing right now (including two manufacturing customers of mine here in South Florida) about buying steel, and they'll immediately cringe and utter some epithet about China. They've deeply backlogged the world's supply of steel with a vast works and building program.

 

Communism isn't on the way out in China. It's stronger than ever.

 

(About half of that has been called "non-performing", but that's cause for GREATER concern, not less -- guess what happens when those loans get called in and the calls are ignored?)

[Woxor]

As far as American conditioning goes, it's not necessarily so much the idea that communism = failure as the fact that true communism is practically impossible and that approximations to it tend to be unstable. Now, I'm not educated on the matter enough to really hold my own, but apparently China has worked out a stable state. That may or may not mean that communism is working over there, but I would wager, despite how conditioned my opinion may seem, that the extent to which it is stable is the extent to which it ignores its true communist ideals.

 

Few in China actually wake up in the morning and think about how they can make the commune better, I assert; human nature doesn't allow it. Where there's smoke, there's fire: an increase in productivity echoes an increase in incentive. Capitalism is nothing more than the economic allowance of this, whereas the incentive for communism appears to come from an abstract knowledge that behaving in thus-and-such a way will make things better for everyone.

 

If a few people manage to think abstractly and consistently long enough to get themselves to do more work than they get credit for, then a few more people might maintain a communist microcosm, but I don't buy the idea that the upper half of China's ability is cheerfully dragging the lower half along. Regardless of culture, most people can see an opportunity to cut one's losses and go for a selfish goal.

[1veedo]

Not to pick on you or anything, but this is kinda what I was talking about above. People fall into this trap of thinking that non-democratic governments must automatically, by their nature, not have an open market.

 

So I'll ask you this: Can you give me any examples of a market that's more open than China?

 

China's free trade zones alone would seem to be contrary to your position.

I always thought communism was more of an economic system then a government itself. Hense everybody works the same and gets paid the same? I'm kindof interested in how communism works.

[blike]

Correlation != causation. You know that.

Just an observation

[pi_of_9]

Communism isnt a bad government; its structured very well. Basically, everybody works the same and gets paid the same. Everything you buy is through government, hens a closed market. The problem is that the world is pretty much open market. Communism isnt oppressive, it can be, like democracy, but communism itself can be run democratic

 

Communism provides no incentive for the individual to achieve. Why should person X work harder than person Y? Both receive the same pay and same crappy benefits. Person X will not receive a bonus or any reward for hard work or ingenuity.

 

Most all Communist countries have very strict law enforcement to ensure conformity. People are not allowed to express their views openly (the old Communist Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea). I cherish my right to speak my part without fear of the government taking me away in the middle of the night, never to be seen again.

 

Communism is a utopian concept and works in small communities where the individuals are of like minds with similar goals and objectives. Kibbutz and Communes are examples of communist micro-societies that function well. The people are not forced against their will to stay (although some radical religious communes have held their "followers" captive).

 

In a large society, everyone has different desires, beliefs and levels of effort. Some people are down right lazy while others are great acheivers. I predict that in the next 50 years, Communism in China will be replaced by Socialism.

[Sayonara]

Communism provides no incentive for the individual to achieve. Why should person X work harder than person Y?

That's a fine incentive. Any society will benefit from individuals who work for the greater good.

 

The reasons it doesn't work in practice are selfishness, apathy and/or social fatigue (which in turn have a number of causes, not least of which are dictatorial or militant governing bodies).

 

Although you kind of said all that anyway...

[Pangloss]

Interesting, pi.

 

I wonder sometimes if it might be best served to just discard the word "socialism" on the proverbial ash-heap of history right alongside the word "communism". And throw in "capitalism" while we're at it. None of the modern, forward-looking contexts in which these terms are presently used are quite like what these terms used to mean.

 

I think if you were to describe socialism, for example, as a society in which individuals can achieve (and are still structurally, systematically encouraged to do), but are also protected from harm, provided with education, and assisted in discovering their potential, not only for the welfare of the individual, but for the greater development of society, then people would be less afraid of exploring it.

 

I think something that happens a lot here (in the US; does this happen overseas?) is that people envision themselves cherry-picking socialistic programs and embracing them into the capitalist system. Which of course is absurd, given the standard, historical contexts of those two systems.

[1veedo]

Most all Communist countries have very strict law enforcement to ensure conformity. People are not allowed to express their views openly (the old Communist Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea). I cherish my right to speak my part without fear of the government taking me away in the middle of the night, never to be seen again.

That would be an example of the government ‘corrupt’ (By our standards). Commusims can be run without limiting the rights of people. In China for instance, freedom is limited less then it is in the US (here we have Nazi organizations like the Religious Right and the Christian Coalition for America). It’s just very easy to abuse if not set up on a proper constitution or democratic principles. Chinese have free speech. The Soviet Union didnt. However, Soviet Russia was more of a theocracy then anything else; running under the Russian Orthodox until it’s collapse.

[Pangloss]

In China for instance, freedom is limited less then it is in the US (here we have Nazi organizations like the Religious Right and the Christian Coalition for America).

 

Well I don't agree that the Chinese are more free than Americans. Just try and have more than two babies, for example. That problem has been somewhat overblown in the west -- for most Chinese it's not a problem, and they agree with it being best for the country. But it's still a restriction on freedom. They don't have a free press, their Internet is censored, and they stomped on the SARS epidemic faster than you can say "Chernobyl-like cover-up".

 

It's easy to say that the US is just as bad, holding up examples like Jose Padilla and pretend that's the same thing as China's famous due process limitations. But that's clearly just not a fair or even valid comparison.

 

My point in this thread has been that just because they have a government that's repressive in many ways doesn't mean it's not successful. They're not as repressive as some societies have been, certainly, but I wouldn't want to live there. That doesn't mean the Chinese people themselves are unhappy. I guess that's up to them to decide.

 

It's also important to keep in perspective that even though they have 300 million citizens in their middle class, enjoying a decent standard of living, good pay, a car, etc, they still have roughly a BILLION citizens who do not.

 

What's a little intimidating about this whole picture is the idea of a Chinese superpower with 1.3 *billion* middle-class citizens.

[budullewraagh]

Just try and have more than two babies, for example.

dont even try to hold that against them. sometimes freedom must be restricted. in china, population soared and there was not enough food to support the projected population increase. would you rather have a great deal of people starve? look what happened in india thanks to the green revolution

[Pangloss]

I believe I qualified that statement. I guess you missed this, so allow me to repeat myself:

 

That problem has been somewhat overblown in the west -- for most Chinese it's not a problem, and they agree with it being best for the country.