 |
| |
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
China has a long history of isolationism of a sort that made US isolationism look pathetic, by comparison. Echoes of that long-standing isolationism won't be undone by a few strategic arrangements for resources, while China's heavy-handed policies and tendency to simply pirate what it needs, rather than wheel and deal with (and fully engage) other inducstrialized nations will turn a lot of people off.
|
The past does not always portend the future. China is not practicing isolationist policies now. Quite the opposite. It is engage in global trade, something it did not do until a decade or so again.
As for piracy, the U.S. had a long history of that, as did other countries. The question is whether Chinese companies will match their expertise in production with expertise in marketing and R&D. Corporations in other countries have (look at Samsung in the past 10 years) so it is likely the Chinese will.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
In short, China is a bumbling fool when it comes to actually DEALING (in the business sense) with other nations, and this shows no signs of improvement in the immediate future.
|
Perhaps China should take some lessons from the US which has so well in its subtle international negotions. 
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
China's economic growth remains solid right now for one reason alone...they have figured out that they can throw a LOT of people at a particular economic process or problem, and wind up being the low cost producer.
|
To some degree you are correct. China recognises and takes advantage of its natural advantage, but a the same time, China has been quite adept at demanding that foreign investors bring new technology into the country rather than just being a low-cost labour pool, unlike countries such as the Philippines which is paying the price for selling its workers to the lowest bidder without getting long-term benefits.
Chinese companies also have a strong advantage in making deals, for example, Li Ka-shing is the greatest deal makers in the world. The big challenge for these companies is in managing their businesses at a level that can match American corporate executives and in developing existing resources to create international brands.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
re: the "bumbling fool" comment - Quite simply because China has not shown much more than instinctual savvy at this point, in the business arena. The practical, day-to-day business savvy will come in time, but they ain't there yet...not by a long shot.
re: America's business savvy - do not confuse the USA's muddled governmentally driven foriegn policy decisions with good old fashioned business sense. The fact is, the US is the world's largest economy, ahead in nearly every economic measure in existence. This tells me that they're doing something right. Their rise has been nothing short of metoric and miraculous, frankly.
In the span of less than two hundred years they went from being a totally dependent set of client colonies for Old World European powers who had more than a thousand year head start on them, to surpassing their former masters in every concievable way.
That's not an inconsiderable achievement, and again, speaks to doing LOTS of things right. So yeah, they get it. They get it in ways the Chinese just plain don't yet.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:30
|
|
The Official ROC response:
quote:
Home|Sitemap|Contact Us|Chinese Weather Taiwan Time: March 14, 2005 09:18 GMT+8:00 Login Register
The Chinese authorities' deliberation of the "Anti-Separation Law" clearly reveals the essence of their military aggression
Date: 2005/03/10 14:00:00
SOURCE: Mainland Affairs Council, EY
Through the legislation of the law, the Chinese authorities intend to deny the Republic of China its sovereignty and unilaterally change the status quo. It has already created tension in the region and justifies the concern of both the international community and the Taiwanese Government over China's motives. This law exposes China's intent to use military force to annex Taiwan and dominate the region. It has essentially written a blank check for its military to resort to military force against Taiwan. The Taiwanese Government offers the strongest protest regarding the disruption of peace in the East Asian region and stability in the Taiwan Strait, ignoring of the Taiwanese people's will and encroachment of the Taiwanese people's freedom of choice through ill intentions and violent measures.
The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), firmly states that the current situation in the Taiwan Strait is that the Republic of China is a sovereign nation and both sides of the Strait have no jurisdiction over one another. The Taiwanese people cannot accept China's “one country, two systems” arrangement. Any changes to the status quo must require the consensus of the twenty-three million Taiwanese people and the Chinese authorities must accept this fact. The Chinese authorities deliberately attempt to unrealistically dwarf Taiwan by legislating the “one China policy” and “one country, two systems”, and persist on adopting non-peaceful measures to solve cross-strait conflicts. The MAC stresses that the direct-presidential election in Taiwan in 1996 was an important process in deepening democratization in Taiwan. The international community should still be able to recall China's military intimidation by launching missiles in the Taiwan Strait and igniting anxiety on all fronts. The Chinese authorities now adopt legal authorization, which they may resort to methods of violence against Taiwan. This will inevitably endanger peace and security in Taiwan Strait and the East Asian region.
The Republic of China pursues free democracy and have always receive high-level of recognition from the international community. The Taiwanese government believes that “the best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom and democracy throughout the world.” This is also the same value which the United States of America, Japan, European Union and other countries pursue with Republic of China. This is the biggest difference between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. The MAC stresses that, the collective will of the Taiwanese people is expressed through democratic processes. But the Chinese authorities intend to suppress the Taiwanese people with “non-peaceful” and “non-democratic” measures. This shows a clear lack of democratic knowledge by the Chinese authorities and is also the worst ill intended trampling of international human rights and value of democracy.
In the past, the Taiwanese public opinion has explicitly expressed repeatedly that on the one hand, their hope of maintaining cross-strait peace and stability, and on the other hand, their persistence of maintaining a self-governing democratic system. The MAC points out that at the moment, the international community is very concerned about China's formulation of the “Anti-Separation Law.” The Chinese authorities have not considered the Taiwanese people's common aspiration and even disregarded the anxieties of the international community. The Chinese authorities constantly proclaim the so-call “placing hope on the Taiwanese people,” “peaceful development” and “oppose hegemony,” but is actually legislating forceful and “non-peaceful” measures to deal with the Taiwanese people; deceiving and hurting the feelings of the Taiwanese people.
The MAC indicates that in the past five years, the Taiwanese Government has made many efforts to improve cross-strait relations. Concrete suggestions for constructing cross-strait peace and stability have been proposed in cross-strait exchanges and dialogues, yet the Chinese authorities completely dismiss the Taiwanese Government's continuous efforts in improving cross-strait relations by formulating this law and creating barriers against further cross-strait exchanges and resumption of dialogues. The Taiwanese Government would like to appeal to the international community again, to challenge China's false hegemony behavior of “saying one thing and doing another”, and take concrete actions to assist in safeguarding the present peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
|
Please note the 1st sentence of paragraph two where Taiwan says it is a sovereign state.
PRC...your move.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
China has a long history of isolationism of a sort that made US isolationism look pathetic, by comparison. |
With thousands of years of history there bound to be cycles in imperialistic behaviour.
In fact, the longest history of isolationism occurred during the latter part of the Ming dynasty (right after Zheng Ho's epic voyages). The latter part of the Qing dynasty was also somewhat isolationistic but wasn't as bad.
After 1949 the so called "Bamboo Wall" was partly forced by US's containment policy. The PRC was not diplomatically inactive, yet was mainly limited to contacts with Third World countries.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
In short, China is a bumbling fool when it comes to actually DEALING (in the business sense) with other nations, and this shows no signs of improvement in the immediate future. |
Is that why the EU is going to lift the arms embargo?
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
China's economic growth remains solid right now for one reason alone...they have figured out that they can throw a LOT of people at a particular economic process or problem, and wind up being the low cost producer. |
Relative advantage - that's how it's supposed to work according to economists.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
China will eventually follow suit, but in the meantime, and all the while, the US economy is growling ahead like the lion it is |
Sorry to rain on your parade, Vel. The US economy now only account for ~20% of the worldwide pie and is shrinking. It has continually shrinking since WWII.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
re: the "bumbling fool" comment - Quite simply because China has not shown much more than instinctual savvy at this point, in the business arena. The practical, day-to-day business savvy will come in time, but they ain't there yet...not by a long shot.
re: America's business savvy - do not confuse the USA's muddled governmentally driven foriegn policy decisions with good old fashioned business sense. The fact is, the US is the world's largest economy, ahead in nearly every economic measure in existence. This tells me that they're doing something right. Their rise has been nothing short of metoric and miraculous, frankly.
In the span of less than two hundred years they went from being a totally dependent set of client colonies for Old World European powers who had more than a thousand year head start on them, to surpassing their former masters in every concievable way.
That's not an inconsiderable achievement, and again, speaks to doing LOTS of things right. So yeah, they get it. They get it in ways the Chinese just plain don't yet.
-=Vel=- |
Actually, you greatly overestimate the beginning difference, and fail to mention some huge things:
Europe did NOT have a "1000" year jump start- the US began at the same level of knowledge and technology as the Europeans- the difference was one of size and resources, not of knowledge. The US was, since its birth as a independent state, fully integrated into the world economy and seen as a relative equal to European states in so far as being a sovereign state was. The US benefited immensely from wave after wave of humanity coming from Europe- same as Israel, which did not exist in 1947, by 1987 was the strongest state in the region-because it was integrated into the world economy and reaped the benefits of mass inflows of people and capital from the outside. Add to this large inflows not only of voluntary but involuntary migrants and the tens of millions of man hours of labor the economy got for free. in 1789 the US was nowhere near as big in population as any European power- by 1879 it had a population greater than all but Russia-this immense population growth into a relatively empty continent free of serious rivals by itself was enough to secure the US status as a great power- regardless of any "US business innovation". The US matured as Europe matured- it industrialized later than the UK< but about the same time as France and Germany, and earlier than Russia.
If anything, Japan is a symbol of a far greater, meteoric rise: within 50 years of being forced to open to the outside world, a state went from Feudal to world power capable of taking on one of Europe's great powers and beating them in land and at sea. I doubt you would claim that Japan is home to some great business acumen, yet a government driven top down approach achieved incredible things in less time.
Oh, and you final comment that the US surpasses the Europeans in "every conceivable way"- I can conceive of many ways in which the US is the same or behind Europeans, while ahead in others. But to return to Japan, in the 150 years since steam warships of the US forced a feudal pre-industrial Japan to open up, the Japanese today are richer per capita, live longer healthier lives than Americans, and are as Technologically advanced (unless you want to say Japan lags deep behind the US in technology). Maybe the "foolish" Chinese can replicate the advances of the Japanese.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
The US economy is not "roaring like a lion"- if the government and the Social Security actuaries are correct the US eocnomy will continue to grow in the next 75 years at a rate of 1.9%, about 60% the average of the last 75 years and much slower than China and India.
What does ther US have that India and China can't get?? I can't think of a single thing. Perhaps the biggest impediments to greater Chinese growth are both internal- weak property rights for peasants, who still have not seen comprehensive and extensiuve land reform, and a weak judicial system. If Chiona fixed both of these, well, it would be set for long term economic growth- imagine if every Chinese peasant had the ability to know they owned their land, then was able to use it as collateral to get mortages and loans from reputable banks to start up a business?? That would be just simple awesome. It won't be easy for China to get there, but once it does, eclipsing the US won't even be a question.
Ditto for India.
People have a rather strange view of History. The zenith of US power was 1945- when it was the only power with nukes, about half of the worlds economic output, so forth and so on. The US made it to the top because it was big, rich, and its competitors bashed themselves silly while the US could sit in another hemisphere out of harm. Well, that world is gone. Human history has lasted 5000 years- anyone who thinks that one state will remain paramount for the rest of history is certifiable.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Power is intrinsically relative, unlike economic growth. It is a zero sum game, in that any increase in power by one party by it's nature decreases the power someone else had.
You may argue that is not the case when technological groups moved into village sustenance-farming areas. But even then you had elites, or the local elders, who were forced out by the new overlords. A modern division in Papua, New Guineau give you much more power than in lets say in Beijing. As long as you can keep your logistics, you have pretty much absolute power in Papua. In Beijing the PRC military would maul you. It's relative.
You are confusing destructive ability with power and context. All of those nuclear weapons, when faced by like weaponry have relatively little power. OPEC has a large amount of power, constrained by economic factors (oil at too high a price means more marginal sources are pursued, increasing supply and diluting OPEC's ability to set prices). As the US military is discovering in Iraq, power can be vastly diluted by context (suicide bombers, insufficient garrsion troops, etc.). The army of Desert Storm is faring much worse as the army of occupation. To repeat, context is crucial.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
I would argue then you are talking science and technology versus power. Technically, you are correct. However, to combine the two terms makes the discussion meaningless, as the paradigms are totally different. That's why people, when normally talking about power (versus energy) are discussing it between individuals and societies. Google power, eliminate energy related statements, and look at how many concern it as being over nature, and how many as people over other people. I rest my case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
China has a long history of isolationism of a sort that made US isolationism look pathetic, by comparison.
|
It does ?
I'd say that China has actually been very open to foreign ideas, influences and products throughout its history- from Roman coral jewellery and glassware and statuary, to Sogdian monk-alchemists, African raw materials, European clocks and artillery, Korean philosophy and literature, Indian Buddhism, Tibetan lamas, steppe shamanism, Nestorian Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Turkish ballgames and metalware, Jesuits, Iranian mathematics and astronomy- the Silk Road wasn't by any means a one-way street.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Japan's economic success came about via a number of factors, but one of the major ones was a visit by a certain American economic wizard, who laid out a blueprint for Japanese success.
|
Really? and who might that be?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
re: the "bumbling fool" comment - Quite simply because China has not shown much more than instinctual savvy at this point, in the business arena. The practical, day-to-day business savvy will come in time, but they ain't there yet...not by a long shot.
|
On a lot of fronts, the mainland Chinese corporations are there. Where there are weaknesses, the knowledge gap is being supplied by outside investors, particularly the Japanese, Taiwanese and Hong Kongers.
Many Chinese companies are at the leading edge of business technology.
You ignore the economic power that exist at your own peril. Don't underestimate the competition.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
re: America's business savvy - do not confuse the USA's muddled governmentally driven foriegn policy decisions with good old fashioned business sense.
|
You mean like Tyco and Enron?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Nonetheless, there's one country that sits at the top of the economic pile, and there are a bunch of also-rans. |
What a foolish way to think of it. The US is the third largest country in the worl population wise- being it is the only 'developed' country in the heap of the top 5, no kidding it has the biggest eocnomy- but your measures seem a bit dated- Americans don't have the highest per capita income in the wolrd, and with negative savings rate, our consumption driven economy is driven by the willingness of others to lend us the money, money we don't have.
Many states prefer the European model of work to live, not live to work- plus others might be more interested in less income inequality and poverty.
But at the bottom, you miss the fact that the world has a global economy- the uS is no longer divorced from the system, and the fact is China has been a bigger engine of global eopcnomic growth over the last decade than the US-and its not even a developed state yet.
quote:
Japan's economic success came about via a number of factors, but one of the major ones was a visit by a certain American economic wizard, who laid out a blueprint for Japanese success.
Listening to the advice of those who already HAVE success is one of the chief ways of gaining it for yourself.
Pretty simple stuff, actually.
-=Vel=- |
Actually, not simple stuff.
1. Your view of Japan success seems a bit condescending, but more importantly, a large bit WRONG. It in fact seems a lot like making facts try to fit a world vioew, as opposed to accpeting them. So, who were these "American geniuses", and if so, why was the Japanese industrial model significantly different from the american one, and remains to this day!? Once again, facts get in the way of world view.
Japan found its own way to success, and it achieved far more than probably any other country in history in terms of meteroric rise. In 1854 Japan had maybe 1650 European tech. By 1954 it was in the front ranks of world technology and a modern, developed industrialized state. That's far more than the US can claim (japan did this without massive immigration, and on an island poor in most vital resources), and in fact anyone else can. And it somehow, did this without the magical "US innovation". I wonder how could they possibly ever have done so??
Finally, you seem to think the US model of success is what everyon aims for- well, newsflash Vel, IT AINT. As I said before, many look to places like Europe (or Japan) as a model- they like less income inequality, lees poverty, more social control over things like healthcare. And they will get rich just as well.
I await that list of grand Americans than taught those Japanese savages how to be real modern men...it will be interesting, no?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
Out of curiosity, does anyone actually think that China COULD successfully invade Taiwan? I haven't even heard UR make that claim.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
US Economists who mapped out a blueprint for Japanese economic success:
Solow, Swan, and Friedman.
To this day, Friedman (who, at age 88, is booked solid for the next ten+ years) frequently offers invaluable advice to the Japanese re: the state of their economy.
And let's take a closer look at those numbers, shall we?
Last year, China's economy was a robust 1.65 Trillion in size. That's pretty good.
It also grew at 9.5% which was "the fastest rate in years."
So...at 9.5% growth, the Chinese economy added $156,750,000 to its economy by the end of the '04 fiscal year.
Impressive.
The US economy, 10.99 Trillion in size, grew by less than that. I don't have the numbers, but let us use GePap's predicted 1.9% growth rate.
In the same timespan then, the US economy added $208,810,000 to its economy.
Conclusion, based on just these basic economic numbers: If the US economy continues to grow at an average predicted rate of 1.9% per year, then to keep up (ie - not to close the gap, just to keep from falling further behind), the Chinese economy will need to grow by 12.5% each year.
The fact that 9.5% has been heralded as the "fastest growth in years" for China, sugessts that this is not likely to be the norm for them, and further, given the sheer size of the US economy, I'd say adding more than $200,000,000 to your economy (which is, by the way, a larger amount of economic growth than the sum-total GDP of a great many nations)....yeah, I'd call that "growling ahead like the lion it is."
Maybe you've got a different definition.
So who's not letting facts get in their way?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-03-2005 23:08
|