China Rising: The Economist

This is a discussion on China Rising: The Economist within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by highvoltage Don't underestimate them. I don't see how the statement could be an underestimation. Full potential implies efficiency and maximizing output. I ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28
Like Tree17Likes

Thread: China Rising: The Economist

  1. #16
    Member Array JoeFriday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by highvoltage View Post
    Don't underestimate them.
    I don't see how the statement could be an underestimation. Full potential implies efficiency and maximizing output. I didn't say they couldn't get there. It takes resources to control the populace. If a country is expending high levels of resources to control the populace, how could they ever reach their full potential?

    Think if the US was in a state of martial law for years and years. Would we be where we are today? I don't see how we could be.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by sigs View Post
    Reports are that China is rapidly increasing its naval forces which helps them extend more power and influence over the region. And they can use all the financial resources they desire to continue to increase all of their military. It's not like they have to answer to the people.
    Yes, and while they increase their strength with out money, we spend money to shore up places like The Philippines,
    Singapore, even Viet Nam; to protect and keep control of the South China Sea.

    We have, and have had for about 20 years now, a totally insane trade policy with China. The only excuse is the hope (wishful thinking) that when prosperous they won't want to risk that prosperity in a hot war.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  4. #18
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    China's economic power could well wan as their populace ages faster than many other countries. Something to put in your wok and think about.
    Japan ^3
    Rock and Glock and JoeFriday like this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #19
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeFriday View Post
    I don't see how the statement could be an underestimation. Full potential implies efficiency and maximizing output. I didn't say they couldn't get there. It takes resources to control the populace. If a country is expending high levels of resources to control the populace, how could they ever reach their full potential?

    Think if the US was in a state of martial law for years and years. Would we be where we are today? I don't see how we could be.
    Dictatorship is not necessarily bad for an economy or even the material development of a nation. Korea went from
    nothing at all to an industrial powerhouse under a dictatorship. Singapore prospers with a benevolent dictatorship.
    Meanwhile we flounder about in unpredictable directions, depending on the talking head that's popular at any given moment.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #20
    VIP Member
    Array gunthorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    home office
    Posts
    2,355
    Even with China's "one child" population control, female infanticide is creating millions of young, jobless, single males. "Raging hormones" will have a whole new meaning.
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    Liberty, Property, or Death - Jonathan Gardner's powder horn inscription 1776

    Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
    ("Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.")
    -Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 95

  7. #21
    Member Array JoeFriday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Dictatorship is not necessarily bad for an economy or even the material development of a nation. Korea went from
    nothing at all to an industrial powerhouse under a dictatorship. Singapore prospers with a benevolent dictatorship.
    Meanwhile we flounder about in unpredictable directions, depending on the talking head that's popular at any given moment.
    Perhaps, for arguments sake, that could be true. However, that is not what China is. We have yet to see an example of a Communist model that uses the state to allocate resources become an economic powerhouse. It's not really an argument of what political economy model is right or wrong. As a world, we've just yet to have seen it come to fruition.

    For us, with a model of allowing the markets drive the allocation of resources in search of profits.... Well, it can have it's warts too, but it appears to have been working for many years with us on the precipice of some form of change as the cycles appear to have broken cadence. We'll see where that lands.

  8. #22
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeFriday View Post
    Perhaps, for arguments sake, that could be true. However, that is not what China is. We have yet to see an example of a Communist model that uses the state to allocate resources become an economic powerhouse. It's not really an argument of what political economy model is right or wrong. As a world, we've just yet to have seen it come to fruition.
    Please don't confuse "communism, and dictatorship." These terms are not the same. So, while we may have not yet
    seen a communist dictatorship allocate resources in a manner that produces an "economic powerhouse," we certainly
    have seen dictatorships of a different form use governmental power to direct an economy which did in fact become
    an economic powerhouse.

    S. Korean is a superb example of that. For more info-- see two books by Ha-Joon Chang, an
    economics prof from S. Korea who teaches at Cambridge. 1) 23 things they don't tell you about capitalism (and no it is not an anti-capitalist diatribe). There are efficient ways to allocate resources and promote growth.
    2) Bad Samaritans.

    Modern China is indeed a form of dictatorship, but its name notwithstanding, it is very very far
    from a communist dictatorship. If anything, they have abandoned communism as an economic
    approach to development, and kept the one party dictatorship component; putting them on a par with other non-communist dictatorships in terms of their ability to achieve a solid economy.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  9. #23
    VIP Member
    Array gunthorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    home office
    Posts
    2,355
    As we are now seeing, central planning is causing the Chinese economy to collapse, but for the American consumer. Free markets have always sorted out the most good for the most people. Equal opportunity vs equal outcome. But China now has to expand and keep its people busy, or there will be an internal turmoil ahead. It's already starting.
    Liberty, Property, or Death - Jonathan Gardner's powder horn inscription 1776

    Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
    ("Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.")
    -Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 95

  10. #24
    Member Array JoeFriday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Please don't confuse "communism, and dictatorship." These terms are not the same.
    I'm not, and I understand that. Also, I appreciate the debate, so no offense taken nor intended as the debate continues.

    Regardless of the label, I stand by my original point that China has yet to reach its full potential and will continue to do so until it allows more freedom in the markets and with the people. That is where the oppressed statement came from in my original post. That is not to say that they have made zero progress. They do have a rising consumer class; however, it is far from being able to consume their current output.

    It's a bit dated now, but one of the things I read probably a couple of years ago was that they had started to hinder the migration from the rural areas into the cities because the infrastructure could not take on the additional population.

    While China and Japan do not get along at all, it is interesting to look at how much slower the development of China's economy has been when compared to Japan despite having access to a large array of natural resources. If the Kwangtung lead Japanese Army wouldn't have gone rogue, and Japan had held on to Manchuria, that would have been an interesting twist to the development of the area as well.

  11. #25
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeFriday View Post
    I'm not, and I understand that. Also, I appreciate the debate, so no offense taken nor intended as the debate continues.

    Regardless of the label, I stand by my original point that China has yet to reach its full potential and will continue to do so until it allows more freedom in the markets and with the people. That is where the oppressed statement came from in my original post. That is not to say that they have made zero progress. They do have a rising consumer class; however, it is far from being able to consume their current output.

    It's a bit dated now, but one of the things I read probably a couple of years ago was that they had started to hinder the migration from the rural areas into the cities because the infrastructure could not take on the additional population.

    While China and Japan do not get along at all, it is interesting to look at how much slower the development of China's economy has been when compared to Japan despite having access to a large array of natural resources. If the Kwangtung lead Japanese Army wouldn't have gone rogue, and Japan had held on to Manchuria, that would have been an interesting twist to the development of the area as well.
    Do remember that Japan's re-development was accomplished under essentially one man dictatorship by General MacArthur.
    They were brought forward by firm and steady leadership; and I doubt they'd have recovered from their well deserved
    destruction had we not been both excessively benevolent and firm in the direction and personal will of brought by MacArthur.

    Had they held Korean and Manchuria, the world would be an entirely different place. I hope I don't offend forum rules
    by referring to the old saw, "if my grandmother had a pair she'd be my grandfather." We can what if fantasy play for ever, but
    I doubt it would give us insight because the what ifs would be based on the imaginary instead of the real.

    Also, Gunthorp in post 23 commented, "But China now has to expand and keep its people busy, or there will be an internal turmoil ahead. It's already starting." It is interesting to compare that comment with the many predictions in these
    forums of our demise. I have no 20/20 crystal ball. I am not going to prognosticate. I'm simply pointing out
    that there are several economies which have made dramatic gains through close governmental management and
    not through the independent (supposed) efficiencies of un-managed markets. We all know well that no planning and
    poor planning lead to the same economic gutter.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #26
    Member Array JoeFriday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    We can what if fantasy play for ever, but
    I doubt it would give us insight because the what ifs would be based on the imaginary instead of the real.
    That being the case, guess we'll just have to see how it turns out. I think the 'booming' China articles started in the '90's. I've got time to see what turns out to be real and fantasy, and like you, I have no crystal ball. I realize my quote of you is slightly out of context, but it gets to the heart of the matter now that all discussions are conjecture at this point regarding what China will or will not become.

    While I agree that no planning or poor planing can lead to bad places, I wouldn't say that it would or should extend necessarily to dictating what the markets should or should not do. That doesn't mean that the government cannot impact the markets because as we all know, they are a consumer of goods and services as well and in addition to the rest of the market. For markets to develop, there has to be an infrastructure in place to allow that development. We only need to look to 3rd world countries for validation of that point. Also, within our country, without city planning, we would be in a mess. But that doesn't mean that the cities dictate what businesses can or cannot open as well as extending that to the federal level. We allow entrepreneurs to take on that risk in search of the reward.

    It depends on the source, but in 2010 US GDP was around $14 trillion or so. China was around $6 trillion or so. As I said earlier, I have no crystal ball either, but logically, that is a lot of ground to cover. Also, when you put that in terms of population, our 300 million to China's 1.3 trillion has to point to some form of inefficiency or extremely low value productivity since the per capita numbers are so far off. The Chinese are smart people. If it was just a matter of planning and dictating what needed to happen, wouldn't they have already accomplished that since WWII? I'm not saying that they can't or won't. It just seems to be something that could happen someday at this point rather than anything that could happen near term. And by then, the world will be a different place.

    I appreciate your stance and opinion, and as I said, I appreciate the debate. I'm just not seeing it being just a matter of planning and/or dictating at this point. And, perhaps I am missing your point.

    I think The Economist runs a yearly issue on China now, so it's lost its initial impact for me. At this point, I would be more concerned about the re-organization of Russia under Putin, but that's just me.

  13. #27
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    Look....the Chinese outnumber us by what in people? Crowded into a fraction of what the US is in land mass. You think they really need decent weapons to conquer anything? They financially own most corporations here now. They pretty much dictate the world economy........I have a Samsung phone because it's one of the best IMO. China rising? Done deal and we've already been conquered! Show of force? Watch the movie.....it's been played several times already. Weapon of choice? Weaken American minds and own most of the land. Guerrilla warfare we should know something about if we were paying attention in school. Sometimes it's the simple things that escape us simply because we're not adept in looking at things in simple ways. Everything has to be complicated now.
    No need worrying about the small arms of the world. The world will be conquered by power and word has it these day power don't depend on small arms. A show is a show, but what happens behind the scenes is what we should worry about.

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,411
    The Chinese , are building up their military at amazing levels over the last 8-10 yrs.
    The Chinese soldier ... will not talk to you. I was even in an elevator with one young soldier and did my best to get him to even look my direction, let alone acknowledge a 'hello'. They will not. You are the enemy, and it's drilled into them very strongly.

    They will look at you from a distance, with a look of pure hate.

    I wanted to get a look at the AK's they were carrying... but not the way I got to see it .... I got an AK stuck in my face, right after he put a round into the chamber..... while the guy was screaming at me to exit a vehicle. I started to get out, even though told NOT to do so under any terms.... hey, he had the gun in my face. Two 'black coats' , (man those guys appear out of nowhere) came out a door and yelled at him..... to which he put down his AK and had the look of total fear in his face, as he profusely apologized.

    If they are told to do something, they WILL do it, without question ,..... including dying for their country.

    No "money" , don't kid yourself... the Chinese have a LOT of money, and they are putting a lot of it into their military. They are building a Navy with aircraft carriers, subs, and working to launch folks and satellites into space.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

china
,
china rising
,
chinese soldiers the economist
,
general yao says gap between american and chinese forces at least 30, maybe 50, years. china,she says, has no need to be
,

the economist chinese soldier

Click on a term to search for related topics.