18-03-2005 22:06									#271
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Whoa: I believe that the US isn't doing absolutely everything it could, no....always room for improvement, but then again, the US can get by with smaller growth rates and stay ahead on account of the vast size of its economy (the difference on paper between 6.6 and 10.99 doesn't look like all that much until you add the words "trillion dollars" to the end of it....at which time, it becomes a compelling difference indeed).

You're ignoring some critical flaws in the US economy.

The US gov't is running a massive deficit that elimates its ability to respon to a recession.

The US federal deficit and the consumer debt in the US are extremely high which makes the US vulnerable to interest rate changes.

The US is extremely reliant on cheap imports from China. If China re-evaluates its currency then that will create an inflation shock in the US.

The US and Canada are also extremely suspectable to oil price increase because their cities are designed for cars, unlike Asian and European cities.

The US is also reliant on cheap foreign lenders, but with the improving stength of the euro, countries no longer have to rely on the greenback. They now have an alternative in the euro which did not exist before.

	18-03-2005 23:13									#272
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap As for China, you act as if surpassing the US were some great deed. The US has 5 % of the world pop- the EU already surpassed the US as an economic block, and places like Japan are richer per capita and got there without being Americans, somehow. Its rather simple- if China reaches the same level of development as South Korea, simply by its size, which will remain 4X the US for several centuries, its eocnomy will surpass that of the US. NO. I am one of those people who no longer goes around using non PPP GDP numbers and calling China "Red China". Having moved on beyond 1989, I can see that the Chinese leadership has begun the same road as Japan once did and SK did as well. I see nohing that will derail China permanently from that road, and only such an event can prevent China from surpassing the US economy. So yes, inevitability. So, again, learnd to read posts more carefully. And have the courtesy to attempt tp back up your assertions.

Japan did not become American, but it did become a democracy. The transition from the meiji autocracy to post WW2 democracy involved gradual democratization in the 20's, a wave of assasinations and attempted coups that resulted in a military regime, and then a World War. If Chinas transition is going to go anything like that, we have some interesting times ahead.

South Korea also made the transition somewhat more quietly than Japan.


South Korea and even Japan are far smaller than China (or India) No nation of the size of India or China has ever successfully reached South Korean levels of industrialization - for the apparently trivial reason that there have not BEEN any countries of that size other than India or China.

Which is not to say they wont. Its merely to suggest that what we are seeing is yet another historical novum, and we dont KNOW what will happen.

"in Munich in 1927, a man was asked what he thought the future of Germany would be. He said that in 10 years time it would be ruled by a criminal lunatic. Well surely then, our fate in 15 years will be horrible. No, he said, in 15 years Germany will head an empire that will stretch from the Arctic to the Sahara, from the Atlantic to the Volga. Ah, then, in 20 years will surely be moving on to greater achievements. No, in 20 years our cities will be bombed ruins, half of our current territory will be lost, and our economy will be a shambles. Oh, then in 30 years things will be very bad? No, in 30 years our economy will be prosperous, one of the fastest growing on earth, and we will be a valued member of the most powerful alliance in the world. They took the man, and sent him to the insane asylum"

	18-03-2005 23:22									#273
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Japan did not become American, but it did become a democracy. The transition from the meiji autocracy to post WW2 democracy involved gradual democratization in the 20's, a wave of assasinations and attempted coups that resulted in a military regime, and then a World War. If Chinas transition is going to go anything like that, we have some interesting times ahead. South Korea also made the transition somewhat more quietly than Japan. South Korea and even Japan are far smaller than China (or India) No nation of the size of India or China has ever successfully reached South Korean levels of industrialization - for the apparently trivial reason that there have not BEEN any countries of that size other than India or China.

India is a democracy already, so we know democracy is not impossible in a state that large. I see no reason why a state with 1 Billion plus people should not be capable of developing at all.

quote: "in Munich in 1927, a man was asked what he thought the future of Germany would be. He said that in 10 years time it would be ruled by a criminal lunatic. Well surely then, our fate in 15 years will be horrible. No, he said, in 15 years Germany will head an empire that will stretch from the Arctic to the Sahara, from the Atlantic to the Volga. Ah, then, in 20 years will surely be moving on to greater achievements. No, in 20 years our cities will be bombed ruins, half of our current territory will be lost, and our economy will be a shambles. Oh, then in 30 years things will be very bad? No, in 30 years our economy will be prosperous, one of the fastest growing on earth, and we will be a valued member of the most powerful alliance in the world. They took the man, and sent him to the insane asylum"

And for all of that, Germany got richer as time when on, so that Germany in 1960 was richer than Germany in 1940, and before anyone mentions postwar aid, Germany would not have needed any postwar aid had it not been for it getting into a war and then getting flattened- one makes up for the other. All industrialized nations have gotten richer, ismply because development forges ahead. What changes is relative position, but unless a state cuts itself of from the world or fails utterly, it will go up.

	18-03-2005 23:33									#274
	Increase the size of your Attachments

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

quote: India is a democracy already, so we know democracy is not impossible in a state that large.

which is why i said industrialize, not democratize.

quote: I see no reason why a state with 1 Billion plus people should not be capable of developing at all.

I did not say it was impossible. Im merely asserting historical contingency is all. A truism, perhaps, but not a trivial one.

quote: And for all of that, Germany got richer as time when on, so that Germany in 1960 was richer than Germany in 1940, and before anyone mentions postwar aid, Germany would not have needed any postwar aid had it not been for it getting into a war and then getting flattened- one makes up for the other.

The story was not about GDP per se, but about the need for humility before history.

quote: All industrialized nations have gotten richer, ismply because development forges ahead. What changes is relative position, but unless a state cuts itself of from the world or fails utterly, it will go up.

But some have seen their growth fall so dramatically as to make a huge difference to their relative position. Argentina and the Phillipines, come to mind. ( I would say Chile, but thats a special case connected to natural resources) You can quibble that they werent industrialized - this only points out how limited the number of successfully industrialized countries was prior to the last 30 years or so - i really wouldnt want to generalize from such a short period.

	18-03-2005 23:36									#275
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Ge: Not sure where the mystery is. I have agreed that both China and India have the potential. What I disagree on is the "inevitibility" of their surpassing. Here's a newsflash. China is a very old nation. They've had this economic potential for quite some time....before the US was even a glimmer in anybody's eye, and yet....they've not been able to successfully do anything with it for that entire span of time.

Here is another news flash, prior to 1978 Chinese leaders were isolationists and ignored much of the outside's gains.
Even then, China was the worlds largest economy until the early 19th century. The collapse of the Empire, the breaking up of the country, the foreign invasions and civil wars that followed during the next 200 years seem to finally have waked the Chinese leaders up. So the question is, why shouldn;t China return to a position of global leadership that it held for more than half of the previous Millenium, and a mayority of the time in the last 2000 years?? If anything is the historical annomaly, its China NOT being the world leader.

quote: So now, they begin to do a few things right, and you start spouting off about inevitability? I don't get it.

No, you don;t , because you have a completely American centric world view.

quote: Here are a few things off the top of my head that can totally derail the progress made so far: * China's authoritarian government pulling the plug on the Market. Can be done simply by decree, if they grow to fear the effects it is having on their population.

China's leaders have statked their legitimacy on making China richer. Their regime survival depends on bringing home the bread.

quote: * Capital flight, if China does something stupid (like oh....invading Taiwan), causing much of the rest of the industrialized world to balk at further investments there.

China has foreign cash reserves of 200 Billion plus, and hold hundreds of billions in US bonds- they have a local savings rate of 40%- certainly capital flight would hurt, but China has enough cash to weather the storm before cash returned. China is simple too large an economy now to be left to fail.

quote: * General contractions in the economy....very punishing to developing economices like China's. * Bad decisions on the topic of monetary policy

Both of which are short term issues that can be overcome. The 1923 hyperinflation in Germany did not make Germany permanently poor. The great depression did not sink world growth.

Its called a cycle.

quote: * War with India (as the other big kid on the block, it could happen, causing LOTS of death and destruction and vastly eroding their huge edge in population). Note too that war between these two giants may well involve some limited nuclear exchange.

Both India and China have been working to avoid that- their land border is a ***** and not particularly firendly to real large wars, and the nuclear option would make sense to neither for a bunch of mountains. As for "eroding the population lead". Laughable. Any war that kills over 1 Billion people will not be a war that hurts only 2 countries.

quote: But you're right....my gosh...it's...inevitable!

Yes, Inevitable. Most of your examples are problems that set things back, but don;t stop growth- all the rich countries of the world today have seen great difficulty in the past. Did not stop them from being richer in 2000 than 1950, or 60, or 30, or 20.

As for the final one- Oh, my gosh, maybe the US gets nuked!! Then China passes us real quick...

quote: Whoa: I believe that the US isn't doing absolutely everything it could, no....always room for improvement, but then again, the US can get by with smaller growth rates and stay ahead on account of the vast size of its economy (the difference on paper between 6.6 and 10.99 doesn't look like all that much until you add the words "trillion dollars" to the end of it....at which time, it becomes a compelling difference indeed).

Economies grow in percentages. The US economy is about 60% bigger than the Chinese one today, but China can make that up- heck, with 4% growth its economy would triple in 40 years. With 2% growth the US economy would double in 40. China would thus pass the US.

quote: Of course China will grow faster for a time...they started off so much smaller that rapid early growth is expected, and in fact, necessary if they are to survive. As they get bigger, however, that growth will slow down dramatically, and be harder to come by, just as it is here. -=Vel=- -=Vel=-

All lower growth does is push the date further. It does not change inevitability.

	18-03-2005 23:54									#276
	Got spare money?

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

quote: China's leaders have statked their legitimacy on making China richer. Their regime survival depends on bringing home the bread.

The current regime, which is effectively only little over 25 years old (the triumph of Deng over the gang of four). Can we be sure that it wont be replaced? China has major social tensions - what if theres a peasant revolution? ( ) You and I may believe that trade, capitalism, and industrialization are the best bets for the peasantary, but theres no guarantee they will see that. Alternatively the current regime might evolve in different directions. So far the level of development has not led to social ferment beyond what the CP has been able to control. All the examples you cite, Japan, South Korea, would seem to indicate that at SOME level development leads to social ferment that an authoritarian regime CANNOT contain. Surely the Chinese leaders know that as well we do. What choice they will make, and how they will make their choice stick, is not something id care to predict.

quote: All lower growth does is push the date further. It does not change inevitability.

Push the date far enough, and we may be into a qualitatively different global economy.


Look again at why China fell behind. For thousands of years economic size was driven by essentially by agriculture, and China had the most land and the most peasants (as long as it was united). It couldnt deal with the changes of the 19thc and was passed by the industrial powers. Are we really sure that in the next, say, 100 years there wont be something else that will shake things up as much as the IR?

All of this of course assumes that the shapes of the polities in question remain the same. The dominant power of the 19th c, Britain, would i think still be the world leader in GDP if it were had the same boundaries it had in 1860. OTOH the EU is the creation of the last couple of decades. All of which is to point out the limited utility of predictions past a certain point.

	18-03-2005 23:57									#277
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap All industrialized nations have gotten richer, ismply because development forges ahead.

ah, the magic of compounding!!! Have you been reading W.W. Rostow lately? (the key text is The Stages of Economic Growth, A Capitalist Manifesto)

	19-03-2005 00:00									#278
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Both India and China have been working to avoid that- their land border is a ***** and not particularly firendly to real large wars, and the nuclear option would make sense to neither for a bunch of mountains.

one presumes that they would not fight over the mountains, but over access to raw materials.

	19-03-2005 00:50									#279
	Inflate your Upload Space

China and India have signed a non-aggression treaty. They're both quite cogniscient that war would be an exceptionally bad deal for them. The chances of them going to war over 'raw materials' are about as likely as the Soviet Union reforming.

	19-03-2005 01:08									#280
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sandman China and India have signed a non-aggression treaty. They're both quite cogniscient that war would be an exceptionally bad deal for them. The chances of them going to war over 'raw materials' are about as likely as the Soviet Union reforming.

No ones talking about this in the near future, or even saying its likely. Just taking issue with certain claims of inevitability. China does have a naval presence at Gwaidar (sp?) in Pakistan. India, in its recent rebuff to the US over the Iran pipeline, expressed concern about Chinese pursuit of energy in the region.

	19-03-2005 01:36									#281
	Remove this text

Got a link for that 'expressed concern'? Iran has strong links with both nations; it's hardly a tinderbox.

	19-03-2005 01:39									#282
	Get a bigger avatar today!

No, i cant find it, but im sure i saw it as the response to Rices nagging about the pipeline. Now i cant find ANY article on the nagging about the pipeline, just happy stuff about the US offering to help India on energy.

edit:

dammit, the source was the Wash Times.


"NEW DELHI -- The United States is raising objections to a proposed $4 billion gas pipeline running from Iran through Pakistan to energy-hungry India, an issue likely to arise during a visit this week by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
India sees the so-called "peace pipeline" project as a boost in its rising competition with China for energy resources and as a way of fostering economic cooperation with its historic rival Pakistan. "

feel free to dismiss out of hand.

Last edited by lord of the mark on 19-03-2005 at 01:45

	19-03-2005 01:52									#283
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

heres some stuff from the Asia Times, always worth taking with a grain of salt, about two years old


"Alongside Chinese military activity in Tibet, Nepal and Myanmar, directed at India, Beijing's "expansionist naval ambitions" in the Indian Ocean are greatly worrying Delhi.

India's chief of naval staff, Madhavendra Singh, recently expressed "concern" about the Chinese navy's "close interaction" with Indian Ocean states such as Myanmar. In an interview with the British-based Jane's Defence Weekly, he said China - which allocates 33 percent of its defense outlay on the navy - is helping Myanmar modernize its naval bases that can support Chinese submarine operations in the region.

Singh said the Indian navy was also "closely monitoring" Chinese activity in developing Gwadar port on close military ally Pakistan's Makran coast, a move that could seriously endanger vital shipping routes in the Persian Gulf, crucial to India's trade and petroleum needs.

Security officers said China is helping Myanmar modernize naval bases at Hainggyi, the Coco Islands, Akyab, Za Det Kyi, Mergui and Khaukphyu by building radar, refit and refuel facilities.

The Chinese are also believed to be establishing a signals intelligence (SIGINT) facility on the Coco Islands, 30 nautical miles from India's Andaman Islands territory, to monitor its missile tests.

Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes, who openly supports Myanmese dissidents and hosts many in his official residence in Delhi, has declared that Hianggyi base to be a joint Sino-Myanmese naval establishment and that the Coco Islands had been lent to Beijing.

In a direct reference to China, but without naming it, the Defense Ministry report declares that "Myanmar remains an area of security interest for India ... because of the activities of countries working against India's legitimate security concerns".

Indian concerns also center on increased Chinese involvement in the annual export to India of Myanmese pulses and beans, worth about US$300 million. Until recently this trade, vital to India, was controlled by ethnic Indian traders operating out of Singapore.

Beijing is also lobbying hard for a corridor to the Indian Ocean from southern China via Myanmar in addition to the established route via the Malacca Straits. China has already constructed a highway from Kunming, capital of its Yunnan province, to Shewli on the Myanmese border.

According to a proposal being reviewed by Myanmar's military junta, Beijing wants to extend that road link to Sinkham for access to the Irrawaddy River, flowing through to Yangon and into the Andaman Sea. Once completed, Chinese barges would transport Chinese goods down the Irrawaddy to Yangon and transfer them on to waiting Chinese ships.

Yangon is resisting this move, but foreign diplomats said it is a matter of time before Beijing prevails.

Consequently, after more than a decade of rhetoric, India has dumped the cause of Myanmese democracy at the altar of strategic and economic considerations and launched an aggressive diplomatic and commercial thrust into Yangon to try to blunt China's influence.

Pakistan and China were among the few countries to defy international opinion and forge close military ties with Yangon's junta in 1988, cleverly complementing their strategy of encircling India.

"India has long ignored China and to some extent Pakistan's growing influence with Burma's military government at its peril. It is now looking to correct this imbalance," a senior military official said.

To neutralize China's influence in Yangon, India was also instrumental in persuading Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Thailand about five years ago to form an economic-cooperation group. But little of significance has emerged from this coalition. "

	19-03-2005 02:02									#284
	Increase Your PM Length

It can't have been that bad; they held joint naval exercises one and half years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3267731.stm

	19-03-2005 02:18									#285
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Sandman It can't have been that bad; they held joint naval exercises one and half years ago. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3267731.stm

keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer

Youre correct that theres been considerable warming of relations since they hit a low back in '98. But the Indians are still concerned about Chinese power. I suppose you could point out that some folks are still concerned about the recreationg of the USSR (while others look forward to it)

	19-03-2005 02:33									#286
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I think my favourite argument in this pissing contest is that a nation with an average growth rate several times less than another nation will never be overtaken by it...

Once I stopped pissing myself laughing at that, I knew I could comfortably ignore the thousands upon thousands of words that spewed forth from that point on

	19-03-2005 03:48									#287
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Note to Molly: I meant to mention this in my post this morning, but was pressed for time on the way to work....I consider those who fled for religious reasons to be in the "soico-arm" of the aforementioned "socio-economic prison" and as such, they'd fall under the general umbrella of those folks striving to leave for "socio-economic" reasons (reading that as "Socio-and/or-economic")

To Ge: You seem to be relying on a truism yourself, while scolding others for the same "crime." Another inconsistency...

And as yet, I have seen no evidence presented that would lead one to the conclusion that China's economic dominance is "inevitable."

I HAVE seen lots of preconditions for their (eventual) economic dominance, which I agree with, having said repeatedly that the potential is certainly there.

The "inevitability," however, is not.

-=Vel=-

	19-03-2005 11:17									#288
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark The current regime, which is effectively only little over 25 years old (the triumph of Deng over the gang of four). Can we be sure that it wont be replaced? China has major social tensions - what if theres a peasant revolution? ( ) You and I may believe that trade, capitalism, and industrialization are the best bets for the peasantary, but theres no guarantee they will see that. Alternatively the current regime might evolve in different directions. So far the level of development has not led to social ferment beyond what the CP has been able to control. All the examples you cite, Japan, South Korea, would seem to indicate that at SOME level development leads to social ferment that an authoritarian regime CANNOT contain. Surely the Chinese leaders know that as well we do. What choice they will make, and how they will make their choice stick, is not something id care to predict.

Which reigme controls China is utterly and completely immaterial to the question of whether China will surpass the US. Again, at most that only ends up changing at what point it happens, NOT if. SK military dictators began the modernization- even when their reigme collapsed, it continued. Nowhere have I said "China ruled by the Communist party", just China.

quote: All lower growth does is push the date further. It does not change inevitability.

quote: Look again at why China fell behind. For thousands of years economic size was driven by essentially by agriculture, and China had the most land and the most peasants (as long as it was united). It couldnt deal with the changes of the 19thc and was passed by the industrial powers. Are we really sure that in the next, say, 100 years there wont be something else that will shake things up as much as the IR?

China "could not deal" because China until the early 1800's never HAD to deal with the issues. Europeans did not come knocking on China's door in the 17th and 18th centuries- its sheer size and wealth allowed it to be complacent and to have its leaders cut themselves off from the world, just like Japan did.

As for your second point, the whole point of my arguement is that China, having seen the need to integrate itself into a global system, that cutting itself of no longer works because those barbarians outside the Middle Kingdom can actually have ideas, means that even if we have some new radical change, China this time will know about it and act on it, and thus will not "be left behind".

quote: All of this of course assumes that the shapes of the polities in question remain the same. The dominant power of the 19th c, Britain, would i think still be the world leader in GDP if it were had the same boundaries it had in 1860. OTOH the EU is the creation of the last couple of decades. All of which is to point out the limited utility of predictions past a certain point.

What are you talking about?

Britians only border change since the early 19th century was the loss of the Irish Free state. IF you mean the British EMPIRE, well, in a colonial empire is disticntly NOT part of the homeland, and in most Colonial empires, industry does NOT spread to the colonies very fast, if at all. The bounderies of the British Empire did not change significantly between 1860 and 1880 yet by 1880 certainly the US had surpassed Britian in output, and Germany, if not already ahead, was only 1 decade away from doing so.

This is a question of China surpassing the US- what anyone else does is immaterial to the question, 1, so what if the EU get bigger? EU surpassgint eh US does not mean China can;t do it.

2. NO, I do not forsee China collapsing, at least the core rich provinces (Places like Tibet and Xian(?) have tiny populations and little is any real industry) anymore than I see the US splitting up again. I am sure some boundaries will change, but if anything the more likely change in the future is a greater deterioration of soverign rights, not some atavistic return to them.

	19-03-2005 11:19									#289
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx And as yet, I have seen no evidence presented that would lead one to the conclusion that China's economic dominance is "inevitable."

I said China will surpass the US. For all we know, in 2080 the top four economies will be in order:

EU
India
China
US

Who knows, but the arguement Vel, if you hadn't noticed it before, is that China's economy will become greater than the US's. That's a two horse race. What any other horse does is immaterial unless it crashes into the two horses we are dealing with.

	19-03-2005 12:06									#290
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GePap 2. NO, I do not forsee China collapsing, at least the core rich provinces (Places like Tibet and Xian(?) have tiny populations and little is any real industry) anymore than I see the US splitting up again. I am sure some boundaries will change, but if anything the more likely change in the future is a greater deterioration of soverign rights, not some atavistic return to them.

Tibet and Xinjiang (which I suspect you mean) are not the only provinces of extreme poverty. Remove the eastern provinces from Beijing to Hong Kong and that's the general idea. Also, Tibet and Xinjiang are too of the more stable provinces because of all the tight control China has there. The other provinces, including the eastern ones, have seen an increasing number of riots recently regarding unfair economic distribition and corruption.

Inevitable, no one can truly say. Extremely likely that China will surpass the US, at least economically, very much so.

	19-03-2005 12:09									#291
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DaShi Tibet and Xinjiang (which I suspect you mean) are not the only provinces of extreme poverty. Remove the eastern provinces from Beijing to Hong Kong and that's the general idea. Also, Tibet and Xinjiang are too of the more stable provinces because of all the tight control China has there. The other provinces, including the eastern ones, have seen an increasing number of riots recently regarding unfair economic distribition and corruption. Inevitable, no one can truly say. Extremely likely that China will surpass the US, at least economically, very much so.

The reason China cracks down so heavily in Tibet and Xinjiang is because untrest there might be nationalistic and secesionist. People rioting in the poor interior what better conditions (and the faster they get them the sooner China surpassing the US occurs) but they would hardly be asking for their own independent states, unlike Tibetans or Uighurs.

	19-03-2005 12:36									#292
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Japan's economic miracle occurred before WWII so it is difficult to say that the switch to democracy had a significant impact on Japan's post-war growth. If Japan economy grew significantly under the emperor then it is reasonable to assume it would have continued to do so in the post-war period. As for downplaying America's role, the problem is that there is no indication that the US significantly contributed to Japan's success. If you believe that the US did, then show me how it did. What can be said is that Japan chose a different route to develop its economy compared to the route taken by the US.

The Japanese example does show something important though:

In the 1980s it was thought that Japan's economy would soon overtake the USA. What happened instead, however, was more than a decade of stagnation.

Why'd this happen? It's easy to run down a beaten trail, but once you're in the front and have to blaze the trail, things naturally get slower.

The US has huge cultural advantages that will become increasingly important in an increasingly globalized world. As bad as racial problems are right now, the US is still decades ahead of much of the world.

	19-03-2005 12:40									#293
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Smiley The Japanese example does show something important though: In the 1980s it was thought that Japan's economy would soon overtake the USA. What happened instead, however, was more than a decade of stagnation.

For Japan to have gone beyond the US, its per capita income would have had to have been twice that of the US. Japan does have a higher PCI, but twice the US would be a PCI of 60,000 plus.

quote: The US has huge cultural advantages that will become increasingly important in an increasingly globalized world. As bad as racial problems are right now, the US is still decades ahead of much of the world.

Racial issues?

	19-03-2005 12:41									#294
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by GePap The reason China cracks down so heavily in Tibet and Xinjiang is because untrest there might be nationalistic and secesionist. People rioting in the poor interior what better conditions (and the faster they get them the sooner China surpassing the US occurs) but they would hardly be asking for their own independent states, unlike Tibetans or Uighurs.

The communists who brought the current regime didn't come from Tibet or Xinjiang.

	19-03-2005 12:46									#295
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DaShi The communists who brought the current regime didn't come from Tibet or Xinjiang.

OK, and?

China's leaders don;t want any chunks of what they consider their country to break off. The Han, even if they riot for better pay are not likely to want to break China up. Uighurs and Tibetans, who have an indentity that does not view itself really as Chinese do have reasons to seek independence.

	19-03-2005 12:49									#296
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

It's not just breaking off that could be a problem. I don't understand why you are being so myopic.

	19-03-2005 12:53									#297
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DaShi It's not just breaking off that could be a problem. I don't understand why you are being so myopic.

Because as I said to LoTM, regime change is imaterial to my arguement- that China will invariably develop, and by its sheer size, surpass the US. The fact South Korea's dictatorship fell did not stop it from developing. That the Suharto regime fell in Indonesia has not put the breaks on Indonesia's development (the Asia financial crisis is what has slowed it, but NOt ended it). So what if the Communist regime falls? If it did anything to turn away from economic growth, those types of riots would only INCREASE. And if the reigme falls, then hey, maybe a nice, wonderful democratic regime takes over, Taiwan decides to join the motherland again peacefully, and China surpasses the US even faster....

	19-03-2005 13:00									#298
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

That would be nice. But the communist revolution in China led to decline in productivity and quality of life. Revolutions in China have historically been destructive for the country. The growth comes from the reconstruction afterward. This is one of the reasons the Chinese fear rebellion or revolution so much (Tiannanmen Square). They tend to get crazy. So it's not right to compare them with other countries in this regard unless you can show past similarities in style.

	19-03-2005 13:15									#299
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DaShi That would be nice. But the communist revolution in China led to decline in productivity and quality of life. Revolutions in China have historically been destructive for the country. The growth comes from the reconstruction afterward. This is one of the reasons the Chinese fear rebellion or revolution so much (Tiannanmen Square). They tend to get crazy. So it's not right to compare them with other countries in this regard unless you can show past similarities in style.

Yet China has in its 4000+ year history survived countless rebellions, civil wars, barabria takeovers, foreign invasions...

Yes, the communist revolution did lead to much destruction- the great failure of the Great Leap Forward, the madness of the Cultural Revolution..but if anything, that in my mind enhanced my arguement- who whould have thought, looking at China in 1966, just 7 years after the end of mass famine, with the country in political turmoil on a grand scale, that in just 40 years China's economy would by the second largest in the world?

The changes brought by the leadership I believe have brought fundamental change, because China no longer is an isolated middle kingdom-its part of a very new globalized world.

	19-03-2005 14:12									#300
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: I don't understand why you are being so myopic.

Welcome to the club...