 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Um....actually GePap, that's MY point.
You are the one arguing for inevitibility. I'm arguing on the side of history...that NOTHING we humans seek to do is inevitable.
-=Vel=- |
This is getting annoying and boring.
History shows us that no power remains on top. No power keeps their number one place for ever. The Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Chinese, Romans, Arabs, Turks, French, English, ALL of them have seen their time of power wane and end, to be surpassed by another power, for a variety of reasons.
Today the US is that great power. And the US, like all other powers in history, will see its lead end, its hegemony stopped, its time in the sun eclipsed. I think, due to what we have seen, that China will be the power that will surpass the US. I in fact think various powers will, just as the UK, the greatest power in the world in 1850, saw itself ecliped by Germany and the US.
You are the one arguing that somehow China might not catch up the the US- the other side of that coin Vel is to argue that the US will never see the Sun set on its empire. Are you not able to see that!? To argue that China will not surpass the US is to argue that the US, unlike all the powers on earth before it, will not wane (unless you think and agree then that India will surpass the US).
Again, this is not rocket science.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
Yes, you continually find ways to denegrate and predict doom for the country you have chosen to live in. Your view of your country is pessimistic. |
Since when is not being on top "doom"? That is a very strange view. I had a grand time in Austria, a place that has not been on top in 300 years. Somehow people survive.
quote:
Vel's argument is well founded in that he evokes the principle of uncertainty...which must be used in any future economic projection.
Your argument fails in that it evokes inevitability...a premise that cannot be supported in any prediction. |
Vel makes contradictory claims. As for predictions, I am not going o predictions, I am going on extrapolating current trends forward. I would also say its inevitable that the world's population will be greater in 2050 than it is today. Absent an act of God, that will happen. You know, just like people say it's inevitable that Social Security will run a shortfall. Heck, we don;t know, maybe in 2030 there will be a massive plague that will kill everyone over 70- that sure would make SS viable for many decades to come.
If I were a betting man, that is not a bet I would make, thought.
quote:
A simple argument of absolute versus fluidity. Surely you must acknowledge that the future is still fluid? |
Its fluid, just as the water is a river is fluid. That stream of water thought has an inevitable end.
quote:
The best we can do is make a prediction based on current trends. Today's prediction is drastically different than 10 years ago due to differing current trends...as 10 years from now is likely to be drastically different from today's. |
DRastically different? Not really. The world today is NOT drasticlaly different from 1995. People may hee and haw and claim so, but the life of the average person had NOT changed dramitically. Some things that were new in 1995 are more common today, but in the end, trends that were ongoing then continue.
quote:
This is the principle that Vel was really trying to communicate...and you fell squarely into his snare. |
His "snare"?  That's a funny way of reading the debate. Its hard to see what kind of snare can be made by someone who claims there is nothing inevitable, except of course the inevitability of the US not being on top.... you know, there is a basic fundamental logic problem there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
Mmmmmkay!
Since GePap obviously has problems with that same "English Language" he scolded me with earlier, let me take another stab:
Two statements:
1) It is inevitable that Microsoft will lose marketshare.
2) It is inevitable that Apple will eclipse Microsoft.
One of these statements is true. One is not. COULD be true, yes, but that's not the same thing.
The first statement is true because Microsoft (like the USA...cool analogy, no?) IS in fact, at the top of the heap. They have nowhere to go but down.
However, the nations of the world do not play musical chairs, and each take their turn sitting at the top of the pile, thus, singling out any one nation and saying that it is "inevitable" that they will surpass the us is patently absurd.
Grandted, China has a much better chance than, say, Zaire, but admitting to that is not the same thing as tauting its inevitability.
Or...is it, in your universe?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Ting: Actually, not for and to the Japanese specifically, but yes. And again (this time specifically FOR Japan) in ~1998?.
|
Vel: If you have a chance, you should should learn something about Friedman, Japan's economy and economic in general. Then you would see why your statement is so foolish.
Friedman argues for minimal government intervention.
Japan's economy was built with extensive government intervention, both fiscally and through controlling corporate development.
Friedman is against tariffs, Japan maintains numerous trade barriers.
Friedman is in favour of monetary policies, (but free currency markets) and opposed to fiscal policies.
Japan routinely intervenes in the currency markets and has extensive public spending.
There is simply no connection between Friedman's theories and what the Japanese did to successfully develop their economy.
More than that, Friedman's theories have proven a disaster when applied to developing economies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
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.
|
Your conclusion is wrong because you have not set an end date. If the Chinese economy grew at 6.25% then it would simply take longer to catch up to the U.S. compared to a growth rate of 12.5%.
You're pulling numbers out of thin air.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
Ting: Friedman has a long history of offering advice and blueprints for success to Japan. Sometimes they are followed, sometimes not.
I know full well that the Japanese insistence on heavy handed government intervention runs against most of Friedman's theories, but this has not stopped him from continuously advising them on the points they WILL listen to.
In fact, over the years, the pace of that advice has picked up considerably.
Molly: Well said, and quite so. 
Ge:  Ohhhh how I have missed this! The problem, good sir, is that both statements are yours.
I have never maintained that the US will "inevitably maintain" her economic dominance. Just as I have maintained that it is not "inevitable" that China will eclipse the US. There's nothing contradictory in that position.
Where you CAN find a contradiction, however, is by claiming the point that it's "inevitable" that any particular nation will be the next economic, military, imperialistic (or whathaveyou) juggernaught, and in the same breath agreeing that "nothing in human history is inevitable." Can't have it both ways, bro.
When you're at the top, you've only got one direction to go. When you're not at the top, you can go either direction. This is where China is, at present, and there's nothing "inevitable" about her future.
Or are you one of those freaky predestination people?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
Ahhh, and while we're harping about the English language, here's some stuff that you may not know (given your useage of the word)
The word inevitable implies a sense of predestination and un-avoidability (in fact, this is the very root of the word). There is no escaping or avoiding that which is inevitable. Variables no longer apply, because they cease to have meaning.
This is why (or at least one of the reasons) that your core argument is frankly laughable.
Inevitability does not NEED "if's". It simply does not require them.
Nonetheless, your argument is:
IF A, b, c and d happens, China's rise to economic dominance is inevitable.
The presence of the variables in the equation, and China's dependence ON those variables, however, makes it quite clear that their economic dominance is NOT assured, as you have so frequently posited in your many posts.
Further "basically inevitable" (another gem of yours, describing China's soon to be ascendance) is not even in the same ballpark as "inevitable."
So before you choose to harp on the english language and your mastery of it, mayhaps a greater understanding of the words YOU are using is in order.
Well, that and a bit more of that "readong comprehension" stuff?
-=Vel=-
EDIT: Of course, you'll have some or other catty half-baked comeback...that really is...inevitable I suppose....
Last edited by Velociryx on 16-03-2005 at 04:10
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
Granted, there were lots of reasons for leaving.
The slave work force was concentrated in the South, and was a steady influx, but a clear minority of the influx of people, however.
And while it is absolutely true that a good chunk of people indentured themselves to pay for passage to the new world, this in no way refutes my earlier comment. There was a REASON they were willing to bind themselves to the folks who could get them to the USA...namely, because they figured that EVEN WITH a seven year payback period, they'd have better opportunities here than there.
Then there were the numerous people kicked out on religious grounds, and the Geogia colony, which was a penal colony, rather like the one in Austrailia.
Of the groups you mentioned, however, only the slaves and the prisoners were not "fleeing to" the US....the rest, for whatever the reason, decided that they'd better get out while the getting was good, and....they did.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Ge: Ohhhh how I have missed this! The problem, good sir, is that both statements are yours. |
Next time I will ad "" so you can understand better.
quote:
I have never maintained that the US will "inevitably maintain" her economic dominance. Just as I have maintained that it is not "inevitable" that China will eclipse the US. There's nothing contradictory in that position.
|
No, you agreed (do I need to quote you) that the US will NOT keep its dominant position. That is a statement of inevitability (supported by the quote YOU brought up on the British empire). It is contradictory to claim that it is inevitable that the US will at some point not be number one anymore, yet that it is wrong to speak of inevitability when it comes to anyone else.
quote:
Where you CAN find a contradiction, however, is by claiming the point that it's "inevitable" that any particular nation will be the next economic, military, imperialistic (or whathaveyou) juggernaught, and in the same breath agreeing that "nothing in human history is inevitable." Can't have it both ways, bro. |
First, next time, try to read the posts more carefully. BUt I will make it easy for you by adding "". Maybe that way you will get it next time...
Second- My arguement was, and remains, it is inevitable that the US will lose world dominance, and it is inevitable that China will surpass the US. That is rather consistent.
quote:
When you're at the top, you've only got one direction to go. When you're not at the top, you can go either direction. This is where China is, at present, and there's nothing "inevitable" about her future. |
What is the underlying basis for your first argument? This is what you fail to ever explain. But leaving large parts of your :arguement" vague and free of details is a sadly commmon activity with you here in the OT.
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.
quote:
Or are you one of those freaky predestination people?
-=Vel=- |
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
1850 South immigrant born - 241,665
1860 South immigrant born - 392,432
1850 Southern Slave population - 3,116,629
1860 Southern Slave population - 3,838,765
1850 South total population - 8,982,612
1860 South total population - 11,133,361
Source - multiple US Census tables.
In the south, the increase in population due to the increase in slaves (free blacks actually decreased as a percentag of the black population) and non-immigrant Causasian factors hugely outnumbered the amount due to immigrants. While the percent of the population that was immigrant did increase, the gross numbers of slave population increase alone - 722,136 - dwarves the gross increase in immigrants - 150,767.
There were reasons for this. Immigrants found the slave holding states had a much lower wage for immigrant labor due to the competitve effect of slavery. Contrary to popular claims, the south had turned slavery into an economically viable system, without imports (of slaves).
However, that system was not competitive except in certain areas like agriculture, and then only in the context of long periods of letting land lie fallow and with certain valuble crops, i.e. cotton and tobacco. Even then planations had decreasing crop yields, and a goodly portion of that was the extreme conservatism of slave holders combined with an excessive amount of capital tied up in claves themselves.
There are a host of additional reasons for this, and books have been written solely on this issue. Suffice to say, the Civil War pretty much decisively answered the competitive issue. As an addenda, one of the reasons the South attemepted succession is that by 1860 they could no longer dominate US politics? Why? Immigrants didn't want to compete against slaves, and came to the North.
The Northern demographics increased, and all of a sudden you could have a president elected without one Southern electoral vote. His name was Abraham Lincoln. Supporting some of the points about both free (immigrants could move where they chose) and regulated (limited areas with slavery) markets. The killer is keeping the balance.
Both China and India at this point appear to understand this better than either party in the United States. Eclipsing the US is theirs to lose - if they keep doing things right, and the US ignores various government supports worldwide (look at Deutche Post and Deutche Telecom so-called competition in US markets) - the US economy, due to a variety of issues, will be displaced as number one in the world. However, if either nation starts to overregulate they will descend back to stagnation. If they underregulate, they will end up with a Russian style kleptocracy. Only history will tell.
Last edited by shawnmmcc on 16-03-2005 at 23:53
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-03-2005 07:52
|