Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Evildoer
Baron
Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 434
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Next king super power. Posted: 07-Oct-2004 at 18:31 |
But you are talking economics again. Although China is much more centralized, it is certainly not democratic in the sense India is.
|
|
warhead
General
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Oct-2004 at 19:22 |
No, i'm talking about governmental success as a whole, a good government is defined by how it could feed its people, its stability its order and law, as well as its ability to successfully execute plans and new reforms without setback, India certain is more politically backward than Chna, in fact its perhaps democracy that made it such way. Had India been more autocratic, it might have been better off as suggested by many east asian experts.
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Oct-2004 at 21:27 |
Originally posted by warhead
"India is economically backwards but China is politically backwards. Looking at the history of western Europe its the politically more free that reach economic sucess sooner and in a more powerfull fashion, England compared to say Spain is a good example."
No, according to writing of many top U.S. East Asian analysis, India's government is less successful than China's. They could not handle a lot of their nation's problems whereupon the more centralized Chinese government could execute their measures more effectively. India is in fact more politically backwards. Studying western Europe is a flaw, its whole society is different, for one it has a larger middle class and its trading required the rise of capitalism.
|
Its the very fact that China is so centralized thats the prblem. State controled societies are not as effective as free ones in establishing a sound ecconomy.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
warhead
General
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Oct-2004 at 10:21 |
But the fact is that China's economy is supieror to India's right now.
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Oct-2004 at 14:48 |
That won't last for ever, people have just moved in to exploit cheap labor, when their labor isn't so cheap as living standards rise, as they are very rapidly, China's economy will level of and maybe experience 2-3% GNP growth.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Oct-2004 at 14:52 |
I expect China to fall in world power over the long term if they end up making the transition from Communist, authoritarian rule in the same way Russia did.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Evildoer
Baron
Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 434
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Oct-2004 at 18:59 |
They arn't really communist right now - large sectors of Chinese industry is capitalist. I think poor/unemployed people have to starve to death in China as of current because they government won't give them any aid. But authoritarian they are.
|
|
Anujkhamar
Chieftain
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1027
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Oct-2004 at 05:52 |
Originally posted by maersk
yea, i can see india outstripping china in growth within 10 years. |
actually, india kind of already has. The last quater of 2003 in india
saw a growth rate of 10.3%. On top of the the first quater of this year
saw a 7.4% growth rate. This being said, i believe that the chinese
economy is better than the indian one and it will be for the forseeable
future.
I think it's inevitable for both india and china to become big world players.
I have a theory that that both countries economies are going through
one long cycle. Most economies work in cycles of boom, steady then
recession. Before the 1600s India and China accounted for 50% of
the worlds economic output. Obviously they'll never reach those high
numbers again, but by the end of the century i see them matching the
american economy.
|
|
warlord
Samurai
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2004 at 04:45 |
I agree with Warhead. Democracy has failed India. The way the cities of Mumbai and Shanghai are developing brings out clearly the value of authoritarianism.
Mumbai is becoming a giant slum. Already slum-voters are in a majority. They effectively block any attempt at development. Shanghai has no such problem. From whatever reports I have heard, it is becoming the greatest city in the world.
Dictatorships are also better placed in foreign policy. China can be consistent in it's geo-political strategy. India's strategy changes everytime the govt changes. Some govts of course have know strategy at all.
China is better placed to take control of global oil. Once the US retreats, China will move in rapidly.
Curiously, India's current leftist Oil minister, collected funds for China during the Indo-China war of 1962. Need one say anything more about Indian democracy.
As an Indian rightwinger, Arun Shourie, said 'In India everyone can block everything, as a result, no one can do anything.'
|
|
SJI Lasallian
Knight
Joined: 03-Sep-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2004 at 10:09 |
China would be the next world superpower. But I'm not sure whether the 'war' with Taiwan would affect that or not...
|
"I adore in all things the will of God in my regard" -- Saint John Baptist De la Salle (final words)
|
|
SJI Lasallian
Knight
Joined: 03-Sep-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2004 at 10:12 |
China has the ambition and the ability to become world superpowers and it could achieve that if it set its mind to it.
|
"I adore in all things the will of God in my regard" -- Saint John Baptist De la Salle (final words)
|
|
TMPikachu
Pretorian
Joined: 14-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2004 at 10:33 |
Well, you can't force a democracy to work. I'd say within... 200 years, China will be come a democracy some time.
|
|
Kids
Shogun
Joined: 19-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 238
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2004 at 01:11 |
It is really hard to know what the world will become within one century. We know that during the 70s and 80s, Japan was the number 1 economic power: the estate of the imperial palace in Tokyo was equivalent to the estate of whole California in early 1980s, and the top 10 world banks were occupied by Japanese banks in early 1990. Japan's miracle created an unseen public fear in US. Americans at one time bashed Japanese cars on the street, and burn their products as unemployment in US was so high due to the economic deficit to Japanese exports. Japanese economic success forced Westerns to rethink their model of market economy and even their democratic values. Famous academic books such as "Japan #1" from Harvard research center was widely praises and studied. In this book, the Harvard scholar wanted American government in 80s to adopt Japanese format of top-down economic policies in order to overcome long periods of economic stagnation under Reagan administration. The suspicious and fear of rise of Japan was most apparent in puplic expression in arts and media. Many movies were often included with futuristic cities based on the present day Tokyo, and their dominance in technological inventions (Blade Runner, Alien3), or basically a consipiracy of Japanese companies that posed threat to the security of USA (Rising Sun).
My political professor (University of Alberta), who was undergraduated study in Japanese politics in Japan, told us that most scholars in 80s believed Japan would no doubt took over US as number 1 economic superpower by early 1990s. But, as we know it now, Japanese stock market collapsed with stagnation in economy in 1990. Since than, they had not found a feasible solution for it, and the present Koizumi's reform was facing pressure from strong LDP conservative force. Despite all this, Japan was still the number 2 economic power in the world.
So, what is the next superpower? My political profs. believed it WOULD be China as we witnessed how China sustained itself during the Asian Economic crisis in 97, but it was really hard to predict whether China will overcome its serious domestic problems, notably corruption (it was really heart breaking, as millions of peasants were struggling for justice everyday).
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Nov-2004 at 19:52 |
Originally posted by Kids
...We know that during the 70s and 80s, Japan was the number 1 economic power: no, US was ~3 times the size of Japan economy
top 10 world banks were occupied by Japanese banks in early 1990.actully 3 of the top ten banks in the world were Japanese banksl.
...80s believed Japan would no doubt took over US as number 1 economic superpower by early 1990s. But, as we know it now, Japanese stock market collapsed with stagnation in economy in 1990. actually, the cause of japan inc.' downfall was that it over-extended its investments abroad. when the foreign investments crashed (real estate in N America, and businesses in Thai and Indonesia), it took an economic beating. that led to its stock market's collapse
but it was really hard to predict whether China will overcome its serious domestic problems, notably corruption unfortunately, corruption is an integral component of a growing economic power; case in point, the USA, Japan, EU and others. |
|
|
warlord
Samurai
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Nov-2004 at 01:53 |
I think China itself played a role in Japan's downfall, as it drew away a large part of Japan's manufacturing base.
|
|
MengTzu
General
Retired Moderator
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 957
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Nov-2004 at 15:27 |
Hey all,
Political oppression and depletion of of resources will not really hinder deveopment of China. We can't apply Sid Meyer's Civilization games series here. The story of the "Asian miracle," as counterintuitive as it is historical, will explain why:
It's naive to think that political oppression is an obstacle to supremacy. It's very much a part of that path. Take most Asian NICS (newly industrialized countries): what a lot of people didn't know or realize is that these countries, just decades ago, were ruled by dictators -- essentially generals who put on suits. I'm talking about the Nationalists in Taiwan, President Li in Singapore, as well as the presidents of South Korea. Asian politics of the past few decades defeated the notion that dictatorship = stagnate development. In fact, even much earlier, the Japanese disproved Adam Smith's theory that the government should not interfere with the free market, because there can be no free market when there is no market to begin with, and to bring about a market in an undeveloped country, the government must sanction it, and more than doing so, it must overcome every political obstacle from tradional agriculturalists to encoaching, exploitative foreign investors.
The method, then, of Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, and Korea was to use political power to forcefully create a local market. Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea in particular were places with dire lack of resources (by the time of the Korean war, North Korea was much more developed, and South Korea was an agricultural country.) In order to industrialize, they need foreign investment, but the crisis here is that foreign markets will drown out the chance of local ones developing. The relationship of a developed country to an undeveloped one is like that of a capitalist to a labor: the former owns the production of merchandise, the latter provides the cheap labor and raw materials. If the latter is not protected by the government, meaning no tariffs are built to keep imports away, the local consumers would end up buying foreign stuffs (which are better) and the meager amount of money earned from cheap labor and seeling raw materials end up back into the pockets of foreign investors, and if this cycle continues, local economy remains stagnant. What is needed is that money flows into local economy, and that the local market needs not compete with the global one so that it can slowly mature until it can join the global market.
According to a book called "Embedded Efficiency" (or something like that, not sure if that's the name) by Professor Evans of UC Berkeley, the success of recent industralized country relies on precisely what I just mentioned, and two elements are necessary: 1) the government's ability to run itself efficiently for rational goals rather than for personal goals of the political factions, and 2) the government's ability to benefits different sectors of society. The former requires a government not prone to corruption (a problem in China,) whereas the latter requires a people that are not deeply divided (a problem in India.) Who will win first? May be these are the problems that really need to be solved first, not oppression and resource depletion. Modern history has proven that neither of these had hindered a nation from supremacy.
And this is the story of the counterintuitive history of Asia. It's no longer adequate to apply the traditional capitalist model.
Peace,
Michael
11-25-2004
Edited by MengTzu
|
|
MengTzu
General
Retired Moderator
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 957
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Nov-2004 at 15:32 |
Hey Tobodai and Evildoer,
See my post above. In brief: lack of democracy is precisely what led to the success of developing countries. A controlled market, too, is necessary for a immature, weak economy in the face of the global machine. This doesn't mean I'm saying political oppression is moral -- but this isn't the issue of this topic. True democracy will not lead to rapid development. Case in point, American, the crypto-fascist, democractic on the surface, regime, only became what it is today because of brilliant governmental manipulation of the people.
Peace,
Michael
11-25-2004
Edited by MengTzu
|
|
coolstorm
Chieftain
Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Nov-2004 at 16:41 |
"True democracy will not lead to rapid development."
I agree. According to Chris Pattern, the last governor of Hong Kong, India was the largest democracy but also the largest economic disastar.
|
|
MengTzu
General
Retired Moderator
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 957
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Nov-2004 at 18:03 |
Hey Coolstorm,
Keep in mind though that I'm not saying that lack of democracy is therefore a good thing. If I were to choose between economic development and a happier population, I choose the latter.
Peace,
Michael
11-25-2004
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Nov-2004 at 18:42 |
Originally posted by MengTzu
Hey Coolstorm,
Keep in mind though that I'm not saying that lack of democracy is therefore a good thing. If I were to choose between economic development and a happier population, I choose the latter.
Peace,
Michael
11-25-2004
|
Doesn't the former create the latter though?
|
Member of IAEA
|
|