Originally Posted by Hudson

China will eventually may become a world superpower before India, but a lot of obstacles would have to be overcome.

1. Many countries distrust the Chinese government, even more so than the US or Europe, because of its recent political and economic history. This would include many Asian countries, some Latin American Countries, and even some African countries.

2. Although China is 4th currently in GDP, it still lags far behind the US, or the EU if taken as a whole (GDP $12.4 trillion and $13.4 trillion) with China being $2.2 trillion). And even with an annualized growth factor of about 8%, that cannot be sustained with the US and EU having an annualized growth from 3% to 4%. You also have labor shortages in some sectors, but this is at least being offset by the population migration from rural to urban areas, but not enough.

3. China is still inhibited by a centralized planning control mechanism, which could create shortfalls if the mechanism become inflexible. In other words, China's economy could ground to a halt if a serious economic crisis, like inflation or an economic sector, like agriculture, is hit hard. The world saw how ineffective the Chinese government was when SARS first came out. The government was secretative, inflexible, and practically ignoring the problem. If the same type of economic scenario hit China, you could see a repeat. This is what most economic and monetary professionals fear.

4. Curreny is going to appreciate to both the US Dollar and the Euro. it could cause Chinese exports to become more expensive to foreign consumers while domestic products, produced in China, could become cheaper. Thus competive forces could slow the growth factor.

What I outlined are reasons why China would not become an economic superpower; however, it does have some factors in its favor. As long as the Chinese people have the huge purchasing power advantage over other nations, it will continue to grow. This would allow more poltiical and economic reforms to be implemented instead of rushed. Thus the government could gain international momentum as a valued partner, not as a competitor or agitator to some nations. This is the hope of most Chinese officials and businessmen, but only fate will tell.

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

Pi Jiu

Do you work with orphans or something....getting in touch with your inner Mother Theresa?

A lot of Scandinavians do that for a period of time when they are young.

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

Problem is the barrier effect which both expressways and new railroad lines create, and that would be a huge problem in such an overcrowded country. Imagine all the people that would have to move from their homes and all the fields that would be divided into two.

I say that India should upgrade existing railroad lines and build new airports/seaports, but forget about a large network of expressways and go with the RUF system instead because its cheaper and have no barrier effect.

Originally Posted by Hudson

China will eventually may become a world superpower before India, but a lot of obstacles would have to be overcome.

1. Many countries distrust the Chinese government, even more so than the US or Europe, because of its recent political and economic history. This would include many Asian countries, some Latin American Countries, and even some African countries.

2. Although China is 4th currently in GDP, it still lags far behind the US, or the EU if taken as a whole (GDP $12.4 trillion and $13.4 trillion) with China being $2.2 trillion). And even with an annualized growth factor of about 8%, that cannot be sustained with the US and EU having an annualized growth from 3% to 4%. You also have labor shortages in some sectors, but this is at least being offset by the population migration from rural to urban areas, but not enough.

3. China is still inhibited by a centralized planning control mechanism, which could create shortfalls if the mechanism become inflexible. In other words, China's economy could ground to a halt if a serious economic crisis, like inflation or an economic sector, like agriculture, is hit hard. The world saw how ineffective the Chinese government was when SARS first came out. The government was secretative, inflexible, and practically ignoring the problem. If the same type of economic scenario hit China, you could see a repeat. This is what most economic and monetary professionals fear.

4. Curreny is going to appreciate to both the US Dollar and the Euro. it could cause Chinese exports to become more expensive to foreign consumers while domestic products, produced in China, could become cheaper. Thus competive forces could slow the growth factor.

What I outlined are reasons why China would not become an economic superpower; however, it does have some factors in its favor. As long as the Chinese people have the huge purchasing power advantage over other nations, it will continue to grow. This would allow more poltiical and economic reforms to be implemented instead of rushed. Thus the government could gain international momentum as a valued partner, not as a competitor or agitator to some nations. This is the hope of most Chinese officials and businessmen, but only fate will tell.

Originally Posted by Luke

Yeah, Chinese economy is still immature and cannot possibly deal with the crisis scenario that would happen sooner or later.

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

I agree with most of this.

#2 - Agree, but I wasn't comparing China to the US, just India.

#3 - Yes, but things are changing - the government is trying to be more open, at least economically and as it stands right now, the country is quite open in that regard.

Originally Posted by Hudson

The US was not a comparison, but a reference point. The American economy is the most resilient right now.

Yes, the economy is becoming more open. This will allow the Chinese to learn a completely opposite culture dynamic without the horrors of forced political change (revolution). If you look at the lessons of Tienanmen Square, many of the students now said they would do things differently, not as confrontational, but still hold the same principles as before.

As I said, the US must adopt an attitude that the Chinese economy should be viewed as an opportunity, not adversarial. I would like to see a mutual trade agreement with the US, China, Korea, and Japan, the four economic tigers of the world.

Gort, I think your answers are way off base. I understand what Luke and Jiu are writing about. It is not about the carnate knowledge, or sometimes called book learning, but about the education of culture which the culture will change completely different. Western societies have as an advantage, the triumphs and tragedies of Greek and Roman civilization. This is what defines Western Culture. And because the Greek and Roman societies helped define Western Society, it was easier for those individualistic tribal societies of Europe to learn, adapt, and overcome those obstacles. Not the same with Asian socieity, even with Japan as a 1st world country. Personally, I think you should spend at least a year in China before you can begin to understand what Luke and Jiu are stating.

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

More ad hominem, and pure bunk as usual - you still haven't answered why exactly I should tell you where I am from, and what relevance it has to the debate at hand.



Most of your claims about the Chinese economy, for instance, are factually incorrect. I have pointed this out to you in the past, but am met with insults and put downs.

Originally Posted by Luke

You are just being arrogant. Thousands of years of dictatorship make Chinese civilization the only surviving civilization despite various types of foreign invasions. Egyptian, Babylonian and Ancient Indian civilizations are all devoured by foreign cultures. Chinese political and economic systems formed the leading civilization until the 18th century AD when Europeans finally abandoned church authority.

To be more accurate, Asian countries need good dictators of course. Therefore, what is important is to guarantee that only intelligent people can climb up the power pyramid. Elitism is very suitable in Asia.

About your competition theory, no one shall compete with the government, but the administrative people in the government must be able to win lots of competition, and the personnel in high positions must be flexible in order to guarantee elitism. Dictatorial elitism in later 19th century in Japan, later 20th century in S Korea, Taiwan and Singapore brings prosperity. With no proper elitism, pure dictatorship is not good for sure.

In conclusion, elitism, combined with dictatorial efficiency, is the most beneficial for Asia.

Originally Posted by Luke

You raised an interesting issue. However, you selectively ignore that England, France and America had accumulated trememdous amount of resources by colonial robbing and systematic slavery. From these wealth, English and French at that time were in average much better educated than people from other countries at that time. Developing countries nowadays cannot follow the path of western countries.

By the way, when England is getting rich, it was not a democracy. They have to thank their elitism education and some intelligent Queens. American democracy was based on slavery and excluded women. France was under constant struggle between a republic and an empire.

Originally Posted by Gort

To the first paragraph my post did in fact indicate why it is important. The problem here isn't with my reasons it is simply with your refusal to accept them. I suspect if we polled a number of people at random on the board they would understand perfectly what my reasons are. THe fact that you seem to understand english selectively is not my fault.

Originally Posted by Gort

Luke you indicated that asian countries need dictatorships so only the intelligent can climb the power pyramid as you called it. I am retyping what yu said because I do not want to be accused of getting it wrong.

Originally Posted by Gort

There is no region of the world that is somehow created just for the dictatorial model.

Originally Posted by Gort

Each country has to findthe type of democratic system that works for it, but each democratic system has some basic and univesal conditions in order to be considered democratic.

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

It didn't indicate anything and neither am I concerned with random polls. My concern is what I asked you, because of your irrelevant questions. Maybe you could answer the question being asked of you instead of going off on tangents.

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

Nonsense. Asian countries (or, other third world nations like I've repeatedly said and you have ignored) need dictatorships because the GENERAL population is unable to make the right choices for themselves, thereby throwing the whole country in a state of chaos.

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

Take a look at the so called democracy that is India, where votes can be and are routinely bought with bottles of whisky handed out to the poor at election time ...

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

Each country has and needs to find some system that works for it, not necessarily a democratic system.

Originally Posted by Gort

Look this issue began a long long time agon, before you decided you needed a name change to get away from some of it. (I decided to give you something to pounce on since you will not answer the question I have anyway.

Originally Posted by Gort

And by the way I have answered your questions repeatedly under both of your names, the last time being in a recent post in this thread.

Originally Posted by Gort

I could care less what you think of polls.

Originally Posted by Gort

I believe I have made the point as to why it might be important for you to tell us your background.

Originally Posted by Gort

If you refuse then we simply can't take anything you say about any region of the world seriously since you may not know any more than ahy of the rest of us on those issues.

Originally Posted by Gort

I think the people who read this and other threads where this has been discussed understand that even if you don't.

Originally Posted by Gort

And I answered that issue as well, yet I notice like all other answers I give to your points you either ignore it or reject it. In this caase you ignored it. The fact that you seem to have a hard time with the written word is not my fault.

Originally Posted by Gort

Yes it will be some form of democratic system where people have direct say in what their government does and who runs it. It may however not look like the US or EU systems on that you are correct.

Originally Posted by Gort

The English and French maybe but the US didn't become tremendously wealthy until after WWI. It aways had the potential, but then again so has China. Luke I have never said the only path to democracy was the western path, nor have I said all democracies have to look like the US or England or France, all of which I might point out have differeing forms of democracy. However I also do not believe you can dress up a dictatorship in fancy clothes and more modern looking buildings and call it a democracy. Each country has to findthe type of democratic system that works for it, but each democratic system has some basic and univesal conditions in order to be considered democratic.

Originally Posted by Gort

Part of what makes intelligent people want to climb the power pyramid is that they want to reach the top. Most people who are infected with the neeed to get better and better positions are also infected by the eog gene. THe very nature of dicatorships is that only ne person one a few people are at the top and they usually stay there as long as they like. I will admit China has put an interesting face on the staying there as long as you like, however in every other respect it is the same type of dictatorships you mentioned in the other countries. So you have many more intelligent people aspiring to the top than the dictator is willing to allow. What do you think happens eventually. Every nation you mentioned with the exception of Singapore I think, I do not know much about Singapore, has transitioned out of the dictaotrial model. Why? Because it can not be sustained. The Russians tried it for 70 years and it failed. Now they are trying it under a different name it too will fail.