China -- the next superpower?

[tecoyah]

 

 

If China is ruled by an corrupt elite with only a fig leaf of ideolical justification then it may be more likely to resort to militiristic nationalism to maintain support' date=' ........... It may also inhibit peaceful resolution of differences ......

 

The effects on economic potential from politics are immense.[/quote']

 

-Snip-

 

My apologies for the interjection, I simply found this statement extremely relevant to what is happening now in the United States. I hope I placed the edits in such a way as to keep this quote in context. If indeed we wish to be critical of China, and its leadership based on these arguments, perhaps we should take a closer look at ourselves. Democracy is a fragile thing, and easily corrupted by economics, as we are seeing now in the U.S., it is important to keep a balance between economic growth/stability, and governance reflecting the will of the people represented by the democratic proccess.

[Pangloss]

These two things have resulted in only about 15% of babies being female. The vast majority of Chinese men will now never marry or have children. In about 40 years, the death rate will so outstrip the birth rate that the nation will suffer economic collapse.

 

Whoa Nellie! The birth rate for men exceeds that of women BY about 15%. Which means that a significant number of men (15%) may not (statistically speaking) have someone to marry at some point. You certainly can't say that the "vast majority" of men won't have mates. It's still a HUGE problem, because even a small percentage like that means a HUGE number of people in China (I've read estimates as high as thirty *million* men without wives). But let's call a spade a spade.

 

Interestingly, India has the same problem without a one-child law. It's also interesting that the Asian culture most likely to see a population "collapse" in the near future is actually *Japan*. Empty school rooms are the norm over there; average number of children per couple being WAY under 2.

 

Sources:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html

[john5746]

Unfortunately, many societies favor boys over girls. This isn't the fault of communism. China tried 'real' communism and watched the population starve. There is a very real possibility for revolution, that is why the government still rules with an iron hand.

[JohnB]

Pangloss, my apologies, you are correct. I must have misheard the figure. I was listening to a BBC program some time ago and the figure must have stuck the wrong way round. Then again, people say my head is often wrong way round, so maybe that's it.

 

I still believe my prediction to be correct though. According to the 2000 census quoted by NBC, there were 19,000,000 more boys than girls in the 0-15 age group.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508/

 

If we add to that, that according to china.org surveys some 40% of Chinese women (granted the survey seems to have been in the cities only) do not intend to have children.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/Life/92001.htm

 

There are already a number of "Batchelor Villages" in China, this number will increase. So here's the question "What happens to the economy when these men die and there is no population there?"

 

In a normal economy, as people age they are replaced in a semi gradual process. In China, this won't happen. A large number of the workforce will drop out by old age or death in a relatively short period of time and there will be no-one to replace them. That is what will cause the disaster.

[Pangloss]

I agree, it's a very serious problem and will require a lot of attention. Whether it'll be a disaster or not remains to be seen, but the signs certainly point in that direction.

[bloodhound]

it wont be a disaster... the chinese government aren't stupid enough not to have foreseen this situation.

[coquina]

Someone much earlier in the thread mentioned that China is trying to corner the market on steel. That is what my steel suppliers tell me. The cost of some types of steel has risen 66% in a little over a year.

 

I lost one of my major customers because they opened a factory in China. I was getting $38.50 to build a part - it is being built for about $3.50 in China. My customer explained it this way -

 

The objective of the Chinese government is to put their people to work, so they are providing incentives for foreign governments to move their manufacturing to China.

 

The Chinese government builds the factory and equips it with the most modern machinery available. The company provides the supervisory skill and trains Chinese workers to build the parts. They do not have to pay the government for the cost of the building or the equipment. The Chinese workers are paid an average of fifty cents an hour. Therefore, just about the only cost that the manufacturing company incurs is direct material, direct labor, and shipping. They do not have to worry about paid company benefits like health insurance or pension plans. They do not have to pay overtime for work over 40 hours a week. They do not have to worry about OSHA.

 

There is no way that an American manufacturer who has to cover all of those costs, plus pay an assembly line worker over $10 an hour, can compete in a mass production situation.

 

On top of that, we would think of fifty cents an hour as slave wages, but it is much higher than the average Chinese has historically earned, and the workers are standing in line for jobs.

 

I do not know what the answer to this is, but do not think the United States can expect to retain strong operating as a "service economy" without a strong manufacturing base.

 

I've run a machine shop for thirty years, and I am able to survive because I am into prototyping and building specialized machinery for nuclear ships. There is not enough quantity involved in my remaining products to be attractive to an overseas market. However - when I was into production I employed over 30 people - now I only have 5, and they are part time and have retired from other companies.

 

If the US manufacturing sector becomes weaker and weaker, and downsizes more and more, what are the assemblyline workers going to be retrained to do. Many of them started working right out of high school and have been doing the same job for more than 30 years.

 

I know that many of you are a lot younger than I, and you have been discussing the benefits and problems of the communism vs democracy. I am down here in the trenches of the manufacturing sector, and don't think the style of government is the immediate problem.

 

I think the immediate problem is how we are going to continue to keep a large segment of our manufacturing population employed in the coming years.

[Pangloss]

Interesting stuff. Great points about the steel business.

 

Actually the United States has had a service-based economy since about 1957. That's when the turnover happened from manufacturing to service-support as the majority. It's not real well known, but it's well documented.

 

What is of concern is that the model under which we've been outsourcing, which provides quite a few benefits to US companies, tends to come up short with China. The model is based on a number of presumptions that just don't hold true there. For example, an area can realize vitalization and then bring in other businesses to replace the original businesses that moved on because of lower wages elsewhere -- that doesn't happen with China, they have a higher long-term "capture" rate thanks to some very powerful free trade zone effort, and the simple fact that they have so MANY people to elevate out of poverty.

 

By the way, both manufacturing sector and blue-colar jobs are actually on the rise in the US. Which just goes to show you that the picture is complex.

[Pangloss]

BTW, for a reference on that 1957 figure, see Mark U. Porat's "The Information Economy", 1977. It's also on page 3 of "Information Systems Management" by McNurlin and Sprague (2002). (That's where I picked it up, when I read that book for a Master's class on information systems.)

 

Manufacturing labor was at 20% of the workforce by 1980, and falling.

[Aardvark]

 

Do you actually know anybody that lived under that system? I would think not if you any words of praise for that degenerate' date=' debilitating and inhumane system. The sheer viciousness of the USSR's system is almost impossible for a westerner to believe. But I know the people, I have seen the scars, I have heard their stories. I believe.

[/quote']

 

Yes, i do know people who lived in the Soviet block.

 

No, i don't have any words of praise for that system.

[Guest yang_du]

it's kind of funny to see there are still lots of people talking about communist in China.we have abandoned it when we open the market in 1980, now, it's all market oriented. government is not controlling everything as 30years ago. i totally agree with some people's points. you shouldn't see democracy = sccuess and communist = failure. remember, we have 5000 years of history, and the country was controled by an emperor. and we were leading the world through past 2000 years. things went wrong only during these 200 years since many reasons... maybe many of you can't understand why China has the power to be the next superpower, read some chinese history, and maybe you can find out why.

[atinymonkey]

Is the sheer size of China, rather than it's isolationist history, that makes China a superpower.

 

On a side note, what would you class China as in terms of politics?

[Guest yang_du]

China is a big country, with so many people living there. since the beginning, the population of china occupies 1/4 of world population. in terms of politics, i think as long as it's centralized, it would be good for china.

what makes a country superpower? like what US doing today? invade iraq, and force other people think what they think? or tring to conquer the world? Chinese are not aggressive at all. we didn't invade a country and trying to change its politic system. why japanese and korean have so many things in common with chinese? it's because they adopted it themselves.

you think china has isolationist history? how and when? what's Silk Road doing in history? maybe the recent 200 years is isolationist history, but you should see it's not a chinese government controls China at that time. it's manchu's. they conquered China and formed Qing dynasty. and they made China isolated from world.

we had survived during these two failures. ( one from mongolian, the other from manchus) we will not let it happen again. what makes China a superpower? it happened in the history, and it will happen in the future. i think it's the chinese spirit makes China a superpower.

[Aardvark]

what makes a country superpower? like what US doing today? invade iraq' date=' and force other people think what they think? or tring to conquer the world? Chinese are not aggressive at all. we didn't invade a country and trying to change its politic system. [/quote']

 

To say that China is not aggressive at all is an exaggeration. China did not become a great country through being pleasant pacificists. For instance look at the way the current Chinese regime is treating Inner Mongolia and Tibet. In both areas the indigenous population are being swamped by a deliberate policy of planting of large numbers of Han people, a form of ethnic cleansing in slow motion.

 

It is an irony of history that the brutal Russian occupation of Mongolia should have saved that country from the sad fate of Chinese controlled Inner Mongolia.

 

And as for foriegn policy, the Chinese regime has behaved in an aggressive and belligerent manner over the Spratly islands, towards Vietnam, towards India and towards Taiwan. In many respects China acts as a regional bully, at the moment it is a regional power, not a superpower, if it becomes one then it will be very worrying if it continues with its policies of self righteous bullying.

[Guest yang_du]

well, at least China didn't invade so many countries like what Roman empire did in history. we don't have the desire to conquer other countries. for vietnam, maybe u should read some history about why china invaded vietnam for only 16 days, and didn't occupy any territorry of vietnam. it's the same for india. For taiwan, it's been a territory of China since long ago. we just want to unify with taiwan peacefully, only by force if necessary.

and for the Spratly islands, i think we have declare it's our territory since Han dynasty which is 2000 years ago. i don't understand why u argue these are not part of Chinese territory. we just want to get back what is supposed to belong to us.

i think any country is behaved self righteous bullying, as long as it has the power to do so. maybe i should say to defend urself. what U.S. doing today is to defend himself, right? invading iraq or maybe iran to secure its oil interest, as well as to attract terrorists attention.

there are so many countries in the world, but only China has survived through 5000 years. what a miracle.well, there must be some reasons for that.

[Aardvark]

maybe i should say to defend urself. what U.S. doing today is to defend himself, right?

 

I'm not American.

[john5746]

what U.S. doing today is to defend himself, right? invading iraq or maybe iran to secure its oil interest, as well as to attract terrorists attention. there are so many countries in the world, but only China has survived through 5000 years. what a miracle.well, there must be some reasons for that.

 

I think you could add India.

 

Do you live in China? If not, can this website be accessed in China? Not trying to make a point, just wondering.

[Aardvark]

well' date=' at least China didn't invade so many countries like what Roman empire did in history. we don't have the desire to conquer other countries. for vietnam, maybe u should read some history about why china invaded vietnam for only 16 days, and didn't occupy any territorry of vietnam. it's the same for india. For taiwan, it's been a territory of China since long ago. we just want to unify with taiwan peacefully, only by force if necessary.

and for the Spratly islands, i think we have declare it's our territory since Han dynasty which is 2000 years ago. i don't understand why u argue these are not part of Chinese territory. we just want to get back what is supposed to belong to us. [/quote']

 

Curiously enough i have read some history, but thanks for the suggestion anyway.

 

China invaded Vietnam because it did not like the pro Soviet leanings of the Hanoi regime and the fact that Vietnam had overthrown the Khymer Rouge. Therefore it decided on aggressive military bullying. Which failed.

 

Heavy losses and forced to withdraw.

 

As for India, China remains in military occupation of Indian territory, another act of aggressive military bullying.

 

As for the Spratly islands, there is no evidence that any Chinese dynasty every claimed soveriegnty of these islands, no evidence that any Chinese official every visited these islands. The only evidence is of some pottery and coins found there, evidence of trading links. Just because you declare something belongs to you does not make it so.

 

Reunifying with Taiwan by force 'if necessary', what if the people of Taiwan don't want that? Or don't their opinions about their own country count? Taking something by force because you want it is the act of an aggressive bully.

 

And as for not invading other countries and imposing political systems on them, Tibet was an independent country with a seperate people and a seperate government. China invaded and conquered it, and has aggressively imposed its political system. Another act of aggressive bullying.

 

In Inner Mongolia the Mongolian people are now a minority as they have been forced of their lands by Han migrants who are swamping them.

 

On every border China has shown itself to be an aggressive militarily expansionist bully.

[Guest yang_du]

india was conquered by British for several hundreds of years. they even speak english instead of their own language. and another thing i learned was ancient indian is different from indian nowadays. i'm not currently in China, but i'll try access this website when i get back to china. i know lots of websites been blocked by chinese government, it's a good thing to do though.

 

and for the vietnam, i think we withdraw is not because of heavy losses. we had accomplished our goal - to punish vietnamese. we had 4 millions army at that time and we only sent 200,000 army to vietnam. if we want to conquer vietnam, it won't be a really hard thing to do. we conquered vietnam before, for nearly a thousand years. if we need to do that again, we can do it for sure.

 

for taiwan, it's still not a country right now. so, they are still chinese people basicly. Chinese government says we will only act by force as long as they declare independent. and i guess we don't need to unify with taiwan by force, there are many other choices to do. by economy, they already heavily depend on China for everything. and in politics, there are only 3 or 4 countries in the world having diplomatic ties with taiwan.

 

for india, how do u know China remains in military occupation of Indian territory? maybe the territory was supposed belong to us?

 

for Tibet, Tibet was not an independent country for at least 300 years. we had conquered them 300 years ago. check the map of Qing dynasty, and you will see that.

 

for Inner Mongolia, i don't see where your information come from. there were already many Han people living there since at least 500 years.

 

i totally agree with ur idea. "Just because you declare something belongs to you does not make it so." Again, China has so many years of history, we used to have territory even much bigger than nowadays. be honest, we used to control vietnam, korea, mongolia, and even some part of russian territory. Things have changed in these 200 years. as China became weaker, more and more countries began to invade China to take something. That's why there's a rule in nature. Only strongers have the ability to survive. countries like U.S., Britain, or France, never allow other countries to take any advantage of them. In asia, it's the same for China. we will never allow any country to take any advantage of us as long as we have the power to do so.

 

if u say China has shown itself to be an aggressive bully, then it's a sign of China been rising. by the way, can u say what U.S. doing today is right or wrong?

it's a matter of time for China to be the strongest country again in the world.

[Aardvark]

if u say China has shown itself to be an aggressive bully' date=' then it's a sign of China been rising. [/quote']

 

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

 

Firstly you state that 'Chinese are not aggressive at all', then 'why Japanese and Korean have so many things in common with Chinese? because they adapted it themselves'

 

Then you boast of China having conquered and controlled Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia and even parts of Russia.

 

I don't understand what the period of British rule in India has to do with this discussion, or the fact that ancient Indian has changed over the centuries like every other language. What is your point?

 

As for Vietnam, The Chinese commander was sacked because the attack went so badly wrong. The Vietnamese didn't have to withdraw a single division from Cambodia to face the attack. The invasion didn't force a withdrawal from Cambodia or split the Vietnamese from the Soviet Union. The invasion achieved nothing at the cost of great losses.

 

You say Taiwan isn't a nation. Well, it has a President, a constitution, a legislative assembly, a police force, armed forces, its own laws and taxes, a flag and a sense of national loyalty and cohesion. What else does it need to make it a nation? You say it is dependant on China. It is no more dependant on China than South Korea or Japan. If being inhabited by Chinese makes it part of China, then by your logic Singapore is part of China. Are you making that claim?

 

As for Indian territory. China occupies a large part of Kashmir and areas in the Himalayas. Are you seriously going to claim that Kashmir was ever part of China?

 

Yes, the Qing dynasty did conquer Tibet. That does not alter the fact that Tibet was a seperate country to which China has no valid claim. In the past Germany has conquered France. By your logic that means that Germany has a valid claim to rule France today. The Tibetans are a seperate, non Chinese people. They have there own culture and had there own ruler, laws, religion, currency and army. Tibet is not part of China.

 

Han people have been in Inner Monglia for many years, but recently the Chinese government has been deliberately flooding Inner Mongolia with Han settlers. The Mongolian people are being forced of their lands and are now out numbered in their own country.

 

You state that this aggressive bullying is a sign that China is a rising power and it is acceptable by the rule of nature. But you also state that China is not aggressive at all.

 

Other large and powerful countries don't feel the need to behave in quite such an aggressive, xenophobic, bullying manner. You imply criticism of the USA and ask me to defend it. I am not American and so am under no obligation to do so, but i will note that on the current record if China were the worlds super power rather than the USA then China would be far more aggressive and dangerous than the USA and the world would be a much less safe place.

 

I seriously doubt that China will ever be the worlds most powerful country. The tactics of brutal militaristic bullying will make China enemies not friends. China is large, but not large enough to defy the whole world. India is often overlooking as China has industralised but India has a population of similiar size. Unlike China it is a stable democracy with respect for the rule of law. It has an English speaking population with an outward looking attitude. Its government doesn't need to cut of its people from websites (which you seem to approve of) It's government has never had to machine gun its own people in its capital city.

 

China is far too arrogant and aggressive. In time it will find that its neighbours will have similarly developed economically and will not be prepared to co operate and aquiese to the brutal Chinese regime. They can clearly see China record of selfish aggression and will be forced to co operate against China.

 

The road to power China is taking is the wrong one.

[Guest yang_du]

if u say u're not American, then where do u come from?

[Aardvark]

if u say u're not American, then where do u come from?

 

Why does my nationality matter?

[Artorius]

yang du....china is already a superpower...it has been for a long time.Why do you think any other nation or continent speaks in hushed breath and wearing slippers when it inquires to your nation on its human rights.The whole world knows they are millions of chinese citizens incarcerated in prisons for the crimes of speaking out against communism.That people are stopped from having as many children as they wish,how some of them have their children taken away !!!! i wont say more than that!!!

The Tibetans dont want your nation in there country,just like india didnt want british rule....unfortunately a few monks offer little resistance.

[john5746]

if u say u're not American, then where do u come from?

 

I'm from America, and feel very fortunate to be here. Many Americans freely admit our government's mistakes and are the first to complain about them. But, America does many good things also.

 

Do you see China helping alot of countries?

[Guest yang_du]

guys... you are saying there are still millions of chinese people incarcerated in prisons for the crimes of speaking out against communism? where do these numbers come from? did someone indeed go to prison to count the number of political prisoners? i know there are a lot of groups that are anti-chinese, or anti-chinese government. including Falun Gong or other groups. don't tell me your get these number from such resources. they were all fake.

 

As China opened its market in 1980, more and more people care more about money, about their life. no one ever cares about if the government saying if its communism or democracy. and the government is not doing something like putting someone in prison just because he says bad about government. we can say anything in public.

 

for one child policy, if u have more than one child, the government won't take ur child away, they just fine some money, that's all. and that policy won't last long since it also affect the stability of the society. and i know i can have two children since i'm the only child in my family.

 

China is a complicated country that you guys couldn't understand. don't assume u know everything since you know some number about something.

 

As for the America, many American think Iraq war was a mistake, did the government really pull out the troops? U.S. has now occupied Iraq, Afganistan, Germany, Japan, South Korea. And someone says the next target is Iran. you says America does many good things also. what the good things you are talking about? trying to establish United States of the Earth?