Amazing story.
US versus China for world position
-
You read/watch BBC a lot.
-
Actually, the BBC is but a minority of what I watch. It does however represent the largest source of relevant articles to me anyways. That documentary was re-aired on the CBC when I first saw it.
-
Wow, I wish I had time to catch up on every word of every post. This is one of the most thoughtful discussions by folks that don’t agree that I have come across on the Internet.
I’m going to simply start by saying that I think I am the most conservative fellow that has waded into this so far. Regrettably I won’t be providing a full response due to time.
Concerning the admonition early on that we not throw politics into this, I don’t think that is possible. From my vantage point, the larger business intrests have to be involved in the political process behind the scenes so the two are inseperable. For this reason, and because I don’t have time to down it in a round about way, I can’t provide a real response to several points above.
MrCrunch … It pains me to see you write that the US is holding up the Keystone deal for political reasons. There is one party that is doing that, not the US playing international political games.
I really can’t go on because the politics are too intertwined in the subject.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX3pGX9-7uE&feature=BFp&list=FLvq5PTYbMvzM8HgTeor70Fw
Hey check out this video. -
Our government has been blaming China for ruining the recent green energy initiatives.
I believe throwing money at risky ventures, energy or otherwise should be done by the private sector. After all, they get a write off if they fail, and they get taxed when they succeed. And the success may require them to hire more employees, who will also pay taxes (hopefully here instead of China).
Now when we study China’s rise, its like the study of the rise of naval air power that any A&A will easily grasp. Nobody here would question that carrier, proper aircraft useage, or the nullification of your opponents such utilization, would be key to winning any given game of A&A.
Eventually, such a winning strategy gets copied and refined.
Think of Compaq in the late 80’s , who copied IBM, and refined the computer into a bulky travel suitcase version.
Think of Apple, who copied many other mobile device makers like Blackberry , Palm, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Panasonic, etc, and refined it for Iphones and Ipads.
China has technologically done it to our manufacturing industries. They currently hold the advantage in solar.
I humbly suggest that our solar manufacturors study what china’s firms and doing so they can refine and develop improved market share gaining products for mass production and consumption.
-
I believe throwing money at risky ventures, energy or otherwise should be done by the private sector.
Like the internet? Oh wait, DARPANET was a US government creation, the internet is a direct result of the US DARPANET investment. I think private business in the US has done quite well with the internet. The US basically controls it and prospers from it.
China is the epitome of state directed capitalism. The state of China does not micro manage industry in many cases, but their state control of rare earth metals is why China is winning the solar panel war. Well, that and they can pollute the hell out of their country and if you don’t like it then roll over and die.
China has its challenges, watch for a possible collapse in real estate values there. China state control is working to fix this problem, can they do it?
-
“state control of rare earth metals”
That is a credit to their governmental foresight that is severely lacking here.
I bet it would not have cost so much if the USA figured out the potential and started investing for the rare metals shortage back in the mid-90’s.
That is something our government should be encouraging a scientific breakthrough workaround for.
If only our US government can project which will be the likely key raw materials and technolgies will be needed 12-20 years from now and prepare.
China also have a severe limitations on higher learning, yet graduate way more engineers and scientists than the USA.
India too.
The main limitation here is price. And the value of higher ed here is diluted by feel good learning topics and binge drinking rather than hard sciences. The bulk of our graduates will soon be lifetime indebted, unable to compete in the modern world.
-
The US used to produce the majority of rare earth minerals actually. Contrary to the name, the minerals are not that rare, but they are hard to extract. High concentrations that are profitable to remove are rare. The only reason that China now produces 95% of the world supply is that it is an enormously hideous and large process to extract. Since China is willing to pollute the snot out of vast areas of their country and imprison and or kill anyone who speaks out against the practice and grind up their workers in the extraction process they have an unfair trading advantage.
Now if the US was willing to sacrifice a few 100 workers per year in unsafe working conditions, pay the workers 2 bucks an hour with no benefits and imprison land owners who complained about their land being stolen or ruined via pollution, perhaps destroy vast swathes of land with pollution we would have an even playing field.
Hopefully the day comes soon when ordinary Chinese citizens can demand better conditions and even the playing field.
I agree with you on education. Most of the brightest and hardest working hard science students I meet at the local university are foreign exchange students, many many of them from China. I think most engineer types could use a bit of ‘feel good’ liberal arts courses to round them out however. Engineers are often boring and don’t advance far past the head of the local engineering or research department. It’s the history major who started out in the mail room who 20 years later becomes the CEO not the computer science nerd who got hired at the same time at twice the wage.
-
I just came across this article and thought of this thread. I have known China’s economy has been growing at about 10% a year for a long time and have been watching the rise of China for decades. I guess I am getting old, it’s been 3 decades now I have been watching China grow at 10%. I thought it was a fluke, that it was easy to grow something from near nothing to a bit more than near nothing. But compounding it 30 times at 10% turns a puny economy into a real economy. I knew in my lifetime China would have a larger GDP than the US but didn’t see that year coming after just one more US presidential election after this one……
An interesting article on the differences in Western and Chinese cultures and the role of the ‘state’. Yeah, in 6 years China will overtake the US in GDP, albeit they will have to divide it 4-5 more ways being 4-5 times larger in population. That will take another 15-20 years to have the same per person GDP, still in our lifetimes.
A Point Of View: Is China more legitimate than the West?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20178655This article is about the Chinese economy specifically:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20069627 -
The problem with the US and to a lessor extent Canada (being blessed with lots of natural resources per person) is that we stopped making things other than paper wealth with banking shenanigans. If we held China to the same labour and environmental laws that we in North America rightfully enjoy things would be much better and its doable, certainly more so than agreeing with the other political side. If we add to that holding them to intellectual ownership laws and penalize them for state supported industrial/commercial quasi-warfare then we would be fighting a much more fair fight.
Enacting tariffs (supportable by the WTO) seriously ought to be easier than convincing the other guy to raise/lower taxes and decrease/maintain spending.
-
Looks like you’d love enforcing restrictions to China to have a “fair” treatnent. Oh look you did! For around 100 years! Google or Wiki “unfair treaties” plus china or japan, also say hi to commodore Perry.
-
Looks like you’d love enforcing restrictions to China to have a “fair” treatnent.
You enforce the restrictions by simply not buying their products, don’t need a military to not buy things.
Oh look you did! For around 100 years!
I’m not sure who you are referring to. The west in general?
As for Commodore Perry, that was in relation to Japan and he opened up Japan for trade but didn’t exploit Japan the same way China was….So not sure how that relates, if anything, it strengthened Japan.
-
Looks like you’d love enforcing restrictions to China to have a “fair” treatnent.
You enforce the restrictions by simply not buying their products, don’t need a military to not buy things.
Oh look you did! For around 100 years!
I’m not sure who you are referring to. The west in general?
As for Commodore Perry, that was in relation to Japan and he opened up Japan for trade but didn’t exploit Japan the same way China was….So not sure how that relates, if anything, it strengthened Japan.
It strenghten Japan?
Perry and his “black ships” were a nightmare to Japan. The projecting of power through technology destabilized the peaceful (at that times) government, everything went to hell, the Emperor rose to power and they started to get military and navy too, with a slow escalation, from Manchuria to Korea’s conquest in 1910, 'till when they had enough to stop the unfair trades. From that point on they kept arming themselves and then after second China war you had Singapore and Pearl Harbour.
That’s the consequences of Perry’s (US) actions. Probably you wouldnt had a Pearl Harbour without it.
-
Well if the comparison is that of a Japan that never ever faces the west or another country then perhaps the meeting with Perry was more negative. But Japan was never forced into the same sort of commercial agreements that China was forced into. By the 1900s Japan was able to stand up to imperial powers on its own (spell that Russia) and could chart its own destiny rather unlike China.
That’s the consequences of Perry’s (US) actions. Probably you wouldnt had a Pearl Harbour without it.
If a butterfly flapped its wings differently long enough ago then Pearl Harbour also probably wouldn’t have occurred. My point was Perry’s meeting forced Japan into the modern age. Japan made the choices it did on it’s own unlike China until 1949.
Based on the era, Commodore Perry and the United States treated Japan with kid gloves. Compare that to the opium wars……
When Perry arrived in Japan, there was a military-feudal form of government lead by an emperor. I checked the history of Japan and Perry, I think you ought to re-evaluate your premise that Japan was a pleasant peaceful nation at the time. Certainly if you got shipwrecked on Japan you might feel differently about the ‘peaceful folks of Japan’.
The black ships you refer to were what? Ships of a fleet that visited Japan and got a trade agreement but hardly pirate ships killing Japanese by the score. Not sure they ever fired a shot in anger or killed a person.
-
Black Ships is the way Japanese people refers ro this event (as the steam powered battleships where black and scared them).
At that time Japan’s emperor had no power. The Tokugawa shogunate in the last 2 centuries disarmed everyone and reduced the military power (hence why the ronin figure - a jobless samurai - was born on that era).
Tokugawa Japan was a confucianism based country. They had a war jn Korea with Hideyoshi (failing) before they really consolidated the new government. They even had a good relwtionship with Holland (they were trading ONLY with them).And yes China suffered a LOT MORE. The country was humiliated by the strongest west countries (not mine at least)
I also believe that China in communist hands is also a reaction to what they suffered. And they probably will claim revenge sooner or later. Can you blame them? -
Interesting…
I just read a poll of roughly 600,000 people worldwide, as to who they would choose for president.
Every country except 1 elected Obama, and Obama won 80% to 19%.
The only country that would have elected Romney? China
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/05/poll-most-of-the-world-would-vote-for-obama-except-china/
[admin]I don’t see any problem with this post.[/admin]
-
Obama annoyed China a lot during last years. Here’s why they don’t like him
-
Interesting article Garg. I wonder if his skin colour has anything to do with the Chinese slant towards Romney? Perhaps the Mormons are having covert success in China!
-
I’m serious. Chineses were annoyed by Obama, thats it.
Islands issues, Philippines issues, Rare metal issues etc…
-
My head has shaken too much. OK, I say the following as:
A. A US voter who didn’t support or vote for either choice
B. A moderator who understands the rules and will not be debating the politics of the poll, but rather it’s implications and relevance570,000 people voted who they would have preferred for president? This poll had several sketchy parameters:
A. It was not scientific. It was a polling of all the online readers of MSN. I don’t care if you support Obama, that’s not really being honest about wanting an intellectual answer to “Who does the world support? Which candidate?”
B. 36 Countries = The entire planet? Also, consider “the entire planet” is just the online readership of MSN. I could just as easily garner enough international supporters of “clean energy,” poll them, and then state I had found “The Entire Planet” supports one candidate or another. They all have something in common, it must be an accurate data collection! No.
C. Somehow, the “Middle East’s” support for Obama doesn’t bother anyone and China’s support for Romney does? And you can’t use the argument, “The people support us, the rulers do not.” I could use the same argument with China, and considering China’s development and broad access to the internet compared to the Middle East, I would probably have the better argument.
D. The “thoughts” of one MSN China affiliate represents the viewership of China? Did she poll these people, ask them questions? She doesn’t even say, it just says, “what she thought.”
There is no reason anyone should trust this poll as accurate in correctly predicting who the “world” supports (a terribly obtuse claim), and also explaining why the same “world” voted for one candidate or another. Remember, I am merely talking about the validity of this poll, not generalizations about how world politics are, etc.
GG
Suggested Topics
