Then where is the blue water navy, use Chinese Defence Today | SinoDefence.com | Introducing the military power of China instead if you care to or take your pick

The question isn't who can win a war, the question is who can project power. Winning a conflict over a mountain pass hardly proves the ability to project power far beyond your borders. A carrier group, however, does prove an ability to project power.

So where has been the competition for the sale of weapons to China? Why haven't the Russians offered china their most advanced subs, their most advanced planes, or offered them carriers for anything other then scrap? Where are the offers from the US, the UK, France, or Sweden?

Well, that was only one example. But the globalized economy we got today is someting totally different. I don't think the interconnections can be overstaded. And we probably have seen nothing yet till the next major crisis in some important country like China or a major energy supplier like Saudia Arabia. Today it only takes seconds and a few mouse clicks to transfer billions of assets. People take up loans in Yen and put it in USD-Bonds or Stocks in Euros within seconds. And almost everybody can do it today. The information, communication and the mobility of capital is on a totally different level than it used to be just a few years ago. And same more and more goes for normal industry as well. How many parts of a Ford from Detroit are actually procuced by Ford or even in America? How many NIKE sneakers are made in America? Where does all the money come from that finances the American current account deficit? What would Chinese workers do if we wouldn't buy all their stuff? What would happen if the average guy in China or India one day wants to drive a car or to consume as much erergy as we do? We have seen nothing yet.

There is more mobility of capital, but that also means that there is more capital, and increase in the number of people trading offsets the impact that any one crisis may have.

As far as the world being total different, there is no clear line of when 'everything changed' really most of the economic changes can be seen as a continuation of pre-existing trends. Now people can transfer assets at the click of a button, yet before that it was at a phone call, or before that at a telegram. Alexander Dumas even included such schemes as the Count of Monte Cristo's means of revenge (I believe its only in the unabridged edition). So I can pull my money out of the USD and put them in Euros, that may seem like it could result in volatility, but it ultimately creates stability. If you look at cross listed stocks, e.g. those listed on the Nikkei and the NYSE, and you can guarantee that investors won't let the cost of one vary anymore then several cents from the other.

For parts of vehicles I can answer a number of your questions, I recall a recent statistic in the economist that even the vast majority of foreign cars (Honda and Toyota specifically) sold in North America are produced in North America.

In regards to Nike sneakers/textiles in general, this isn't an issue. Whether you make the shoe in Vietnam, Cambodia, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, or China, doesn't make much difference. If there is a problem with the trade with one the companies which went to the others will pick up the slack. Look at the South during the American Civil War, the south held as its bargaining chip that it was a massive producer of cotton, and intended to use its cotton as a tool of leverage in order to get European support, yet the world simply purchased cotton from elsewhere in the world and the south had virtually no bargaining tool. Fact is textiles are quite possibly the least effective bargaining tool which one can imagine.

This is why I consider the impact of Globalization to be overstated, just because one country provides something, doesn't mean that others cannot.

I don't think either that it's more unstable. And yes, there is continuous change going on ever since. But it's all getting more complicated and we have to adapt more quickly to changes in countries that didn't bother us much in former times.

One of the primary reasons for China's success is their massive investments in infrastructure, which is absolutely necessary in order to attract investors. They have built around 40.000 kms of expressways lately as well as high speed rail lines, where India on the other hand have a lousy railroad network and almost no expressways as far as I know.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Good theory, but, high-demand natural resources aside, the qualifier currently seems to be at price and value acceptable in mature post-industrial and developing countries. That's a major impact eliminating many post-industrials from competition and a capital attraction for developing countries.

China will produce 100-passenger jet airliners in 2010, their own design including engines, a significant achievement in a long series of capital-intensive development.

India, with stringent restrictions on investment of foreign capital, across the board tariffs and payment imbalance, seems to still be at arms-length from attracting the partnerships and capital which have accelerated China's already fruitful long-term planning and infrastructure development.

Now, to me, comes the important question; is this attributed to what I'd view as effective long-term planning and implementation (China has had some rough patches they overcame) or ?

Let's not forget the air and sea transportation facilities. All those improvements would have been impossible without in-depth, long-term planning with a goal of increasing per-capita income to eventually consume a large portion of internal production. And they're just starting the services side.

The nice thing about financial success is once it begins it provides a low cost of internally generated capital. Combined with China's controlling interest share of foreign investment rule and a pegged currency, money can almost be printed at will for internal expansion purposes and their trade surplus/debt facilitation used to acquire foreign assets. Gotta be a sweet position when your only fear is keeping it cool enough to meet infrastructure growth requirements and educating enough people to handle the expansion.

The reservation price for highly skilled employees to work in the third world is higher then for working in the first world, negating the idea that you can simply send your engineering, research, etc. depts. to a pre-industrial nation and expect gains.

As in jets which can carry 100 people or as in they will produce 100 of them. Neither circumstance would be incredibly impressive, since I'm certain that it was within their capabilities to do that for years. One is simply a matter of efficiently designing the mass production lines, the other has been done long before. The Boeing 377 Stratocruiser carried 100 passengers for example, and it was flying since '47.

Are you sure you typed that correctly?

India seems to have simply started later as far as deregulation goes, but benefits from a more favorable view when it comes to disputes between the govt. and the corporation which is investing.

You need to explain that to US companies currently employing professional level services in developing countries; India in particular. Is disposible income requirement still the mark for reservation price? I did not specify pre-industrial countries. Ireland, Russia and other countries provide professional level services at about 30% of US costs, an ever-increasing trend.

Regional jets, 100 passengers. de Havilland Comet was the world's first commercial jet, 1949 (lots of problems). I consider it amazing progress for China, considering that out of necessity their position has been accumulation of wealth to finance internal growth through product export and this is an internal requirement. They're still buying their military aircraft engines and much of the electronics from Russia. Not much call in the world market for a new regional airliner, that market being well serviced by a number of firms. For now.

Perhaps. Success is the only real mark in commerce. I'm not familiar with India's planning process, but would think their hodge-podge democracy would offer political restraints to foreign investment by special interests as does their seemingly endless strife with Pakistan.

VERY pertinent and accurate comment. Infrastructure is one area amongst many where China is way ahead. Their expressways are world class. Yes, you got it right on the Indian part - the "expressways" are roads THROUGH congested villages with everything from bullock carts to Ferraris on a narrow lane!

Right on. The Chinese had opened their economy up a long time ago, while the INdians still have archaic laws and haven't done so.


Another blindingly accurate comment - the Chinese system is far more condusive to growth of a 3rd world country than the Indian system.

China is only a regional power since it is only able to project power within its own region. It has little to no heavy lift capability, not much of a navy to protect its supply lines and an airforce that is still made up of mainly older previous generation aircraft. They are certainly trying to change these issues, but until they do they are a regional power militarily only. As I said in the econiomic realm you may have a point but not militarily and until you can protect your global interests how can you call yourself a superpower.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

Great post Gort. You are correct. China does not have the military to give it superpower status.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Ummm, those are internatioally recognized sites when it comes to military science. So, no, they are not biased.

And the US beat Great Britain in our revolution. Since Great Britain was a superpower at the time, and we beat them, according to your logic it was then that America became a superpower.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

That is the crux of it. As it stands now, China couldn't even seize Taiwan.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Complete and utter baloney. The Chinese could take Taiwan any day they wanted - Uncle Sam would hem and haw, but at the end of the day do absolutely nothing.

Sorry, but there are other sites and sources of information other than what the West considers to be "internationally recognized".


Incorrect. I never said China became a superpower WHEN it beat India. I said the Chinese military is stronger than India's, and has always been and quoted the war as just one of the supporting facts, which of course you have ignored.

Second, China IS a superpower, but not because of it's military alone.

Rubbish. Chinese power projects way beyond Asia.


First of all, these days it isn't the military which is the sole deciding factor in whether a country is a superpower or not. Economics is far more important, and China's way ahead of the world as far as growth in it's economy is concerned. Further, you have no idea about the Chinese military, since all the information you are giving is completely outdated (as far as "not much of a navy, and older generaton aircraft).

Last, the comparision is between India and China, and you've convieniently dodged that fact. India's military is not as, and never was powerful as the Chinese military. Which is a fact, regardless of how Thematic Device attempts to play the war in the 60's down (another poster that has very little idea about how either of the two countries really are these days).

Anyway, it's a shame that all these responses have dodged the very question I posed: China or India? Thematic Device may be talking out his arse on most of it, but he at least addressed the issue, which both of you have dodged.