The Chinese Century? (own title)

Internation Herald Tribune ^ | Tuesday, December 16, 2003 | Louis Uchitelle

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

This article does a good job of pointing out something I have been concerned about for a long time; namely, that corporations always produce for the largest market and let the others adapt. China may very well be #1 be and India #2 within 50 years. The US will be 3rd in terms of priority of consumer demand. For most of human economic history China has accounted for 50% of global GDP. It only since 1842 that it has not been this way. It looks like that might just have been a blip on the history radar screen.

Concurrently, despite Rumsfeld hubris about America mainting unchallenged power, technology is expensive and the richer the nation the more powerful.

As an optimist, however, I am hopeful we can teach the Chinese a bit about respecting human rights and individualism and all live peacefully on this little globe. In a prosperous, democratic world disagreements over bras should be all we have to fight over.

However, another question that comes to mind is whether there are enough resources on the planet to provide that many people with that many consumer goods. There is a limit to what we can take out and then dump back. Certainly they won't all be eating ocean caught fish.

[yankeedame]

Good grief, articles like this always make me feel my age!

I remember back in the early 1980's the media - TV, radio, print, the whole shebang - going on and on and on about about Japan Inc. and how it was going to take over the world, how the US's days of being the world's economic superpower were over, and blah, blah, blah....

And now this! Seems like every 20 years or so they drag out and dust off this "Era of the Pacific Rim" crisis du jour

[sergeantdave]

Industry chases the lowest operating costs. Manufacturers will soon start moving to southeast Asia and various Indian colonies. Africa hasn't even been tapped yet.

In another two or three years China will start seeing shuttered factories and lost jobs. The dream of China as a manufacturing powerhouse is a dream and will remain a dream.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

You may be right, but history and demographics tell a different story. Unless, of course you want to live in an America with 1 billion people.

Demographics are destiny - not just for the Israelis.

[Jeff Head]

Before China can attain those levels based on their own market...they will have to open up that market and become free so that the people can be marketed to.

The current leadership has no intention of letting that happen. They are using Sun Tsu techniques to woo huge amounts of money into the country with the promise of an allusionary 1 billion person market in order to displace the failed Maoist/Marxist economics and maintain their hold on the country...and to be in a position to expand that hold out to the first or second Island chains in the Pacific.

Our problem is simple...we are funding it.

We should treat the PRC like the totalitarians they are and only practise the types of economic policies we are currently involved in after the Red Chinese demonstrate substanative change. Right now we have the cart before the horse...and the totalitarians are lapping it up. Unless we get it turned around, the price will be paid in blood I am afraid to turn it around later.

In that case, unless we successfully alter course, the future is more apt to look something like this scenario IMHO.

Jeff

PS: Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit fuer alle!

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

You don't understand this article do you? Did you even read it?

If you did, you obviously have been neither to China nor Africa. Ask somone who has and where they would rather have a factory.

Or, just go back to sleep.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Unless we get it turned around, the price will be paid in blood I am afraid to turn it around later.
___________________________________________________________

Despite your poor grammar, your point is well taken and sadly, I agree.

This is exactly what I find so scary. However, it would be difficult to stop market forces at play. Rather, we also need to work on imparting some of our values on the Chinese. The conquerer may be assimilated, not Americans have been doing a damn good job of assimilating all comers for about 200 hundred years as well.

Fight we must, but not with arms, but rather ideas.

[InShanghai]

How much of the world depends on American agriculture? China's ag market is infantile at best...

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

How much of the world depends on American agriculture? China's ag market is infantile at best...
__________________________________________________________

This is a good, yet very complex question. Unfortunately, it is easy to answer in the short, term, but requires incredible amounts of speculation in the 30 year time frame we are considering.

Right now, the world is very dependent on American agriculture because we have a huge surplus of grain.

However, that surplus is produced, in part because the West as a whole subsidizes its farmers with about $1 billion per day. (Remember Bush signing the farm bill?)

This being the case, the developing world might prove an adequete supplier of China if allowed to sell products there competitively.

Moreover, if you don't think technology is going to provide us with the means to grow significantly more food on marginal land, then we have a much bigger problem in store for the future than Chinese economic growth.

[Jeff Head]

Your lead-in to commenting on what I said was this...

Despite your poor grammar

Then you continued with this...

The conquerer may be assimilated, not Americans have been doing a damn good job of assimilating all comers for about 200 hundred years as well.

Funny, those kinds of nitpickings almost always end up being two-edged sword, don't they? LOL!

Ideas can be the ultimate determining factor...if they are backed up with strong, moral resolution and with the means to defend them. Otherwise, someone will take the ideas and make them their own.

Better to foster an environment where the others emmulate those ideas and internalize them. Right now, the Chinese are not doing that at all...they are moving more towards the former and we'd best give them the proper incentives to alter their behavior or it will lead to war.

As I said, we are funding the move in the wrong direction right now IMHO.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Obviously I meant "but".

Isn't it funny how a big "but" can get in the way of things?

I guess we have several things in common considering we pretty much agree on this and are intelligent individuals who think faster than we type. :0)

[Jeff Head]

How much of the world depends on American agriculture?

Unfortunately, like with our other core industries, we are moving our agriculture production offshore as quickly as possible too.

We are turning ourselves into a true service economy along the lines that Al Gore amd Bill Clinton recommended almost a decade ago. Despite all of the hoopla about service economies controlling information and therefore being in control, once you boil off all means of production and make yourself dependent on others for your actual products and food...the root word in the term service economy tells the tale.

A service economy ultimatley is an economy of servants.

[Jim Cane]

I remember back in the early 1980's the media - TV, radio, print, the whole shebang - going on and on and on about about Japan Inc. and how it was going to take over the world.

Island Japan doesn't have 1 billion people and vast natural resources.

[sergeantdave]

With your emotional reply, it appears you have some financial or emotional connection to commie China. Rather than discussing the merits or lack of merits in my statement, you resort to sophmoric, flip wisecracks.

So if you want to get into a mindless pissing contest, let me return the favor -

Go read the back of cereal boxes, since you obviously have no understanding of manufacturers pursuing the lowest operating costs.

BTW, manufacturers based in China are already seeking deals to move to SE Asia.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Sorry if I hurt your feeling sarge.

I have no emotional attachment to China, I am just severly annoyed by relative newcomers who mindlessly comment about things they don't know on articles they haven't read.

I guess reading the sides of cereal boxes is where you get the majority of your information. Grrrrreat!

[Cronos]

According to the world economic fact book, China accounted for 25% of the world's GDP until the 1800s not 50%. China and India accounted for 50%.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

I am searching for my source and may be wrong (memories are not always perfect), but did your source specifically say that of that 50% China was exactly half? Somehow I find that somewhat unlikely.

[Jeff Head]

I believe China's leaders will maintian the low cost of manufacturing there on the mainland precisely to keep that manufacturing there. They have no intention of allowing the 1 billion to benefit and be substantially raised up by our standards.

Thos emasses are their ticket to conitnued power and overcoming their failed maoist/maxist economics so they can expand their political, economic and (ultimately) military hegonomy. They will walk a delicate tight rope in letting the serfs/peasants see just enough progress to keep them in line while they maintain their totalitarian power over them...and then taking the profits to exert influence outward from China.

Their own writing make it clear that such expansion and hegonomy are their aim. They can only accomplish it by ultimately displacing us in the region...and they have everty intent of ultimately doing that while we fund the whole thing.

They are playing Sun Tsu to the letter.

So, they will maintain an environment for as long as they can where we fall all over ourselves to build nice new manufacturing facilities to take advantage of their cheap labor force...one they will maintain by design in order to keep it from going elsewhere...and for those who do, you watch and see who has large interest in those other facilities in other places.

The key cog in such plans, IMHO, is their ability to continue to woo, blackmail, bribe and cojole us to keep the revenue coming in until they reach a critical mass where they do not need it anymore. What we need to do is to face them with economic and political philospohies like Reagan used to face down and ultimatley bankrupt the Soviets. We can still do that...but it would be costly at this point...but much less constly IMHO than the future alternative.

Just my opinion.

Jeff

[Cronos]

To quote from http://www.theworldeconomy.org/142-143.pdf In the four and a half centuries from 1500 to 1950 Asia stagnated whilst all other regions progressed. In 1500 Asia accounted for 65% of the world GDP and only 18.5% in 1950.

[Cronos]

Sent the link. But the historical aspect is not surprising considering that these two nations have been economic powerhouses for much of history (witness Alexander's desire to conquer the riches of the East). Hopefully we encourage democratic tendencies in China (or Taiwan) and India's democracy.