PDA

View Full Version : Will China fail???



sevgi
10-27-2007, 03:25 PM
Its a long read...but its a worthy read...

China's syndrome of lawless growth
John Lee | October 20, 2007

ONE of the writers who best understood the phenomenon of totalitarianism in the 20th century, British historian Robert Conquest, argues that any totalitarian attempt to control all aspects of life is untenable in the long run and allowing a far greater leeway on some matters - tactical disagreements - is much more viable.
China is no longer a totalitarian state. The regime no longer seeks to control every aspect of life or way of thinking. Although the Chinese Communist Party remains determined to hold on to power, there is no utopian goal as such that totalitarian regimes ruthlessly strive towards.

Indeed, the party is becoming less relevant to many Chinese and different forms of behaviour are largely tolerated as long as they are not deemed to be threatening to CCP authority or social stability. In the words of one expert, Albert Keidel, who has worked and lived in China for more than 25 years, "life in China has softened a great deal".
Single-party systems reach their heights when their vision of the future is universally received and there is sufficient buy-in from the population for the regime to employ totalitarian tactics; state-backed force is only one part of the coercive apparatus. When regimes move towards softer authoritarian models, it is often a sign that their grip on society is slipping and they have no choice but to relax aspects of authority.

Political and social challenges are mounting. For the CCP, the present transitional period is correctly seen as a period of immense significance in terms of the future of its authoritarian rule in China.

The credibility problem for the regime: There is growing evidence that the regime's authority and capacity to govern are declining (in addition to its legitimacy). This is occurring for two main reasons.

First, although it is clear that increasingly allowing the operation of free markets was seen as therapeutic rather than transformative in terms of Chinese politics and society, the authority of the CCP is based on an insecure strategy of inefficiently using resources to fuel a bubble economy. Moreover, the solution - to grant the private sector greater and greater access to this wealth and control of critical sectors of the economy - would accelerate the irrelevance of the party. As the regime continues to oversee an economy based on unsound fundamentals and becomes increasingly less able to provide social and public goods, more and more cracks appear in the facade of CCP credibility.

Second, public decision-making and administration become more sporadic and unpredictable as the disconnect between the central leadership and the majority of its population becomes more pronounced.
This is occurring for several reasons. First, senior CCP members are increasingly becoming part of the new wealthy elites as a result of their privileged position within a China growing richer. Moreover, as part of the tactic to co-opt the new and emerging urban elites, the senior leadership has neglected the poor and especially rural populations, to their detriment. It is easy to forget that there are still about 900 million rural inhabitants in China (and only 100 million to 150 million in the middle and upper classes).

The capacity (and intent) of the leadership to understand their problems and deal with their complaints is greatly diminished.

Second, as the regime decentralised, there was a loss of fiscal (tax collection and spending), administrative and legislative power for the central government, which was increasingly transferred to local governments. This means that the execution of political, social, legal or economic macro policy from the top becomes much more difficult and unpredictable. In other words, there is a loss of centralised control and a greater reliance on local governments that are neither very accountable nor transparent.

The worst local government practices tend to be in the poorer rural areas, which are ruled by the law of local leaders.

The lack of predictability might be less important in a purely agrarian society of uneducated peasants shut off from the world and each other, but is much more critical as a society becomes more complex and the people more educated. China has a literacy rate of about 80 per cent, which includes most of the poor peasants. Looking at the Soviet experience, US political science academic Alfred Evans argued that the inability to set up impartial mechanisms for adjudication, enforcement and regulation, and effective rules for resolving disputes, went a long way towards explaining the resulting loss of legitimacy for the regime and the subsequent implosion of the system.
If simple grievances such as why one is prohibited from bidding for a legitimate contract in a neighbouring province, or why one's home can be bulldozed without warning or adequate compensation despite national laws stating otherwise, are not resolved in an appropriate and predictable way, daily life is invariably compromised and the regime is invariably blamed. In one study, of the 10million petitions registered in 2003 with the Petitions Office, set up to hear and resolve public grievances and disputes, just two out of every 1000 were resolved.

If the one party in power retains the right to intervene regardless of agreed rules, and does so because of a fragmented and disjointed decision-making process, or else because of politically motivated or corrupt CCP officials, the tactic of central leadership deflecting blame towards local officials starts to wear thin. If the CCP maintains that it knows best and the rule of law can be bypassed by incompetent or corrupt CCP officials as well as courts and tribunals ultimately under the party's instruction, then the loss of credibility continues to be directed towards the party as a whole.

That the reported instances of unrest are rising exponentially obviously suggests a rising tide of discontent. However, most analyses stop there because little information is revealed by the Government about the nature of these instances and what they concern. What we mostly hear from the Chinese Government is talk of procedures established to mitigate the seriousness of these incidents. Piecing together a picture of what is happening has mostly been left to intrepid insiders and determined reporters. These piecemeal reports, which are becoming more lucid and comprehensive, point to scenarios that have variously been described as a tipping point, a time bomb and a precipice for the regime.

Indeed, official media channels can no longer hide (and perhaps no longer want to hide) the rising instances of social unrest. These instances are the most tangible signs of an increasingly disgruntled population.
Social unrest in China: Officially reported instances of social unrest (involving 15 or more people) have risen from 8700 in 1993 to 87,000 in 2005 (the latest available figures). This is about 240 instances each day.
The first important point about the rising instances of social unrest is that it indicates a citizenry that is increasingly defiant or unafraid of the authoritarian coercive apparatus. This means the level of discontent is so profound that the protesters no longer care about the consequences of unrest or that the regime's ability to enforce compliance and order has been seriously compromised.

As the truth is undoubtedly a combination of both, this is worrying news for any authoritarian government.
Second, although indicators are that millions have been saved from poverty under World Bank standards of $US1 a day, this statistic must be tempered by the fact social and financial safety nets (such as health, education and welfare) have been greatly reduced during the reform period. For example, a recent UN study estimated that out-of-pocket spending on health care in China has almost doubled as a percentage of total health expenditure from 1980 to 2002, from 36 per cent to 68 per cent. Meanwhile, government spending in the same period has been reduced from 32 per cent to 15 per cent.

Much progress was made from 1979 to the mid-1980s. Since then, of the approximately 900 million peasants, about 400 million have seen their incomes stagnate or decline during the past decade.
Third, the political danger is not just the growing divide between China's minority privileged classes and the rest (most of which are desperately poor) - although this is in itself a genuinely tragic humanitarian crisis - but that most of the cases, and the worst cases, of unrest are directed towards local authorities and officials. In other words, the problem is seen to emanate from the government and a connection is made between the regime and the hardships the general population face.

This is not surprising, as most cases involve frustrations caused by corrupt officials, arbitrary and repressive taxes and land grabs from officials, unpaid benefits or loss of rights against official bodies, non-enforcement of laws by authorities and courts, lay-offs of workers by the state, use of thugs by local officials to demand compliance, and the like.

Even though they control about two-thirds of government revenue collection (with the central Government receiving about one-third), local officials do not deliver services that are relied on by the masses because of insufficient budgeting, corruption or incompetence. When local officials want more money, they simply collect more taxes or fees. In rural areas, because all village land is ostensibly collectively owned, the lack of clear and definable property rights allows greedy local officials to effectively make decisions as to how the land is used, distributed, sold, developed and so on. The regime is intrinsically culpable. The frustrations cannot be dismissed as unruly citizens fighting among themselves or as a result of racial or intra-provincial tensions, as the central leadership attempts to do.

Fourth, the size of instances of unrest is growing and can be frightening. For example, in cases recently documented for 2003, a mob of 50,000 torched police cars in Chongqing to protest against the beating of a migrant worker; 100,000 stormed a government building and forced the postponement of a dam project in Sichuan due to inadequate compensation; 20,000 miners and their families rioted against lay-offs and the loss of their pensions.

Other recent instances of unrest include 80,000 retired workers who protested in China's northeast over unpaid pensions in 2002; 30,000 rioting over exorbitant bridge tolls issued by local authorities in 2004; 7000 textile workers protesting after being forbidden to form their own union in the Shaanxi province in 2004. Of the 74,000 instances recorded in 2004, 17 involved 10,000 or more people, 46 involved 5000 or more people and 120 involved 1000 or more people. That order was restored only after martial law was implemented in many of these cases highlights the seriousness of the problem. Even for the smaller incidents, the numerous anecdotal accounts of protesters violently targeting or resisting authorities speaks volumes about the crumbling regard for the "people's" party.
The government strategy of linking its legitimacy to macro-economic growth may temporary placate the privileged classes but has no apparent bearing on reducing social unrest. As the Chinese economy boomed from 2001 to 2005, the number and scale of incidents continued to rise: further evidence, as if more were needed, that the fruits of any growth are restricted to the privileged few. Impressive macro figures inflated by fixed investment spending cannot solve problems festering away in the micro environment.

The possibility of co-ordinated social unrest: Most commentators outside China agree that the possibility of co-ordinated and widespread social unrest is low and does not pose any foreseeable threat to the regime. Although the social unrest is usually directed towards local officials and, by implication, the regime as a whole, it is not co-ordinated. The protesters do not generally call for the overthrow of the CCP, let alone constitute any kind of pro-democratic movement, and the instances of unrest do not amount to, in the eyes of most experts, a Tiananmen-style protest that is aimed at the central leadership.

They are probably better understood as unprompted pressure valves to vent and release frustrations within a system that does not provide formal mechanisms for such release. They tend to be reactive rather than political in nature and many believe that a social movement is unlikely to arise from one of them.
However, the confidence many Western commentators have that these protests do not contain the seeds of co-ordinated mutiny is of little comfort to the Chinese leadership, which takes this possibility much more seriously. It is true that there is no ready-made and credible political alternative to the CCP at the moment. The regime, well versed in the art of remaining in power by eliminating alternatives and controlling the apparatus of coercion (rather than enhancing legitimacy and service delivery), has seen to that.

Yet non-political organisations can lend their support to political causes. Organised groups within China such as the Falun Gong, Roman Catholics (as opposed to Chinese Catholics) and independent trade unions are given close attention and are subject to significant persecution and control. The Chinese are well aware that there was the same confidence expressed in the viability of communist regimes before the recent revolutions in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Romania. For good reason, authoritarian regimes tend to take the possibility of revolution much more seriously.

Moreover, the regime is well aware that popular dissatisfaction with their lives among hundreds of millions of Chinese, official corruption and an inability to procure redress for injustices and frustrations has led to rising unrest and disenchantment with the party. Furthermore, as more economic, administrative and coercive power moves into the hands of local rather than central officials, effective governance by the vanguard of the regime becomes less feasible.

The inability (and political unwillingness) to genuinely target the corruption problem is a prime illustration. The structural flaws and economic difficulties that lie ahead will exacerbate these conditions. How the regime responds is critically important.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-28737,00.html
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
sevgi
10-28-2007, 11:04 AM
^^^

c'mon ppl...its intresting i swear....:uhwhat:uhwhat:uhwhat
Reply

sevgi
10-28-2007, 11:29 AM
^^^lol bro...this is an extract:uuh:

..this coming from someone doing khifz....tisk tisk tisk!

...how bout a pop up book??? :okay: all the colours of the rainbow...

lol
Reply

MTAFFI
10-30-2007, 03:47 PM
wow, that is a good read and very accurate to boot. I am not sure that China will fail soon, however, as stated in the article if one looks at history it almost seems inevitable that authoritarian governments always fail.... I am not sure what this guys above me is talking about with Iraq though ^o) I dont really think China is much of a threat to the US or any other country for that matter. Their peoples average income is $6000 per year and as the article stated 900 million and some change live in a state of being desperately poor... The government of China is a money making machine but the people obviously live a different life.

Personally I wouldnt be sad to see the government of China fail, they are an oppressive regime and pose a bit of a threat to the world with their recent military antics, but hey only time will tell and if they are to be the next world leader so be it, I dont think it will change much for other countries such as the EU, Russia, the US or really anywhere for that matter. The days of rising superpowers in my opinion is over. A country can rise the status of a "superpower" without reducing another. The US economy right now is at a low, but take note that the economy at its low is still better than most in the world and is still considered to be a "superpower" economy. Economy bubble and then pop, it is just a cycle, who knows maybe one day the whole world can be a "super-economy"
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Idris
10-30-2007, 05:07 PM
China's economy is continuing to expand at a blistering rate - with 11.5 percent growth in the third quarter of 2007. It is now poised to overtake Germany as the world's third largest economy within weeks and will soon also take Germany's crown as the world's biggest exporter.

China's economy is continuing to surge ahead in double-digit growth figures and is due to overtake Germany as the third largest in the world within the next few weeks.

In 2006, the Chinese economy was already worth $2.7 trillion, just slightly behind Germany's $2.9 trillion. By late 2007 or early 2008 at the latest China will usurp Germany's place behind the United States and Japan.
Reply

MTAFFI
10-30-2007, 05:20 PM
Originally Posted by Idris
China's economy is continuing to expand at a blistering rate - with 11.5 percent growth in the third quarter of 2007. It is now poised to overtake Germany as the world's third largest economy within weeks and will soon also take Germany's crown as the world's biggest exporter.

China's economy is continuing to surge ahead in double-digit growth figures and is due to overtake Germany as the third largest in the world within the next few weeks.

In 2006, the Chinese economy was already worth $2.7 trillion, just slightly behind Germany's $2.9 trillion. By late 2007 or early 2008 at the latest China will usurp Germany's place behind the United States and Japan.
china already passed Germany in its exports earlier this month


so let me get this straight, from what you are saying Chinas economy is growing?!?! :uuh:

(please take note of the sarcasm embedded in that previous line)
Reply

omar_2133
10-30-2007, 07:53 PM
dont really think China is much of a threat to the US or any other country for that matter. Their peoples average income is $6000 per year and as the article stated 900 million and some change live in a state of being desperately poor... The government of China is a money making machine but the people obviously live a different life
I think the US sees China more of a threat in militaristic terms, as it is undertaking a vast army modernization programme, and currently contains the missile weaponry and technology to to take down US spy satellites, which would be crucial to the US in times of conventional war and international conflict, on something like the scale of WW2.

A stronger and armed China can threaten the US global monopoly and super-power status it currently enjoys, and shift the balance of power away form the West.
Reply

MTAFFI
10-30-2007, 08:32 PM
Originally Posted by omar_2133
I think the US sees China more of a threat in militaristic terms, as it is undertaking a vast army modernization programme, and currently contains the missile weaponry and technology to to take down US spy satellites, which would be crucial to the US in times of conventional war and international conflict, on something like the scale of WW2.

A stronger and armed China can threaten the US global monopoly and super-power status it currently enjoys, and shift the balance of power away form the West.
I agree with you in the US government seeing China as a military threat, but then it isnt like the US couldnt do the same to China. Such a mistake on either countries part would send much of the world out of the realm of the rapid transfer of information and it would be detrimental to both China the US and everyone else for that matter. But I can understand where you are coming from and they are just as much of a threat as Russia in that regard.

As far as the "super-power" status thing goes, I have to disagree, the US doesnt really have a global monopoly and if they did China is already at the same status or better, I am not really certain but I will do some research and be a little more specific in that regard. But in any case, China wont take any power from the US anymore than the US would dare try and take power from China. If you look at it from a business mans standpoint, the two compliment each other almost perfectly and if anything (especially since the chinese are very good business men, I have dealt with them personally on many occasions) the two may at some point decide to become closer allies that so standoff-ish towards each other. The US is a consuming machine (buys everything, material goods are everything) and China is an export machine (low pay factory work, mining, etc) without one the other wont do half as well. Think of it when the US was on it rise, Europe at that time was dominant as far a a global market was concerned, they never went out of the picture and at times like today, they continue to pop their head up and say "Hey I am still here and I am still powerful", even though they are not AS powerful they still are able to enjoy a nice lifestyle a fruitfull economy and a higher GDP than most places in the world, which in terms of an economy is all that really matters anyway... Being able to say you are a super-power is just a sort of bragging right
Reply

sevgi
10-30-2007, 11:00 PM
firstly, i would like to welcome you all to my thread. i appreciate the time you have taken to read the brick i posted below...

secondly, i see that we have derived two main topics here:
a political one and
an economic one.

i'd like to claim that they are both very interlinked...it all starts with the economy...

in regards to the economy of china, i will start by stating that i am anything but 'economy savvy'. i do not intentionally follow foriegn economics, nor do i study it, yet i am inclined towards it when it slaps me in the face. i do not know about the current economy of china, yet i am led to believe that due to reasons i will state later, they are in need of tightening as they are growing too fast for their own good. i know that 2007 is seeing the growth slow down, yet i do not think the growth has stopped or reversed to the state of de-growth...i know that the economy grew 10.5 or so percent (from memory) in 2006. i know that it was growing way too fast and the energy bills were looking bad. i know that the balance of payments was at a massive surplus, and that global markets were getting anoyyed at the low currency level of china...as they couldnt understand why it was so undervalued, leaving its exporting markets with no 'competitive edge'.

in other terms, china exports too much and imports too little...and yet they work like crazy, to the point where energy use and environmental damage are a major concern. with the worlds coal addiction growing, and chinas efforts in the pocket, it is no suprise...

on top of all this they keep their currency undervalue; inviting even more export and foreign investment...leaving them with too much money...

now normally with a current account surplus, economies use it to pay off foreign debt and liabilities...guess what..theres none there.second option is that they spend it on the betterment of the nation...ummm...i dnt think thats happening...the amazing surplus can be used for anything from military to ..well anything really.

the fact that there is this intentional growth, foreign intrestment and internal struggle poses a frightening threat.i say frightening because noone knows why the hell they would choose to do this..and the first thing that pops into mind is political and economic super-power...

see...we are into politics now...

i do not know enough about US current economics or politics, but i do feel that they, unlike russia, etc, as a super power, have this uncanny inclination, intrest, or enthusiasm towards perhaps becoming a hegemon. now i hate to use that word...but if you are alert enough, it is not easy to miss all the cuffuffle about the US and whether or not it is the new 'empire'...i hold my opinion..but thats a thread on its own...

i think this inclination towards hegemony which appears in US foriegn, and surely domestic affairs is in fact a threat to the rest of the world.i am yet to see or hear an open acceptance of this inclination..but i think it is clear when all affairs are taken into account.i am not saying that they are a hegemon...just that they certainly wouldnt mind it..or are perhaps 'working' towards it either strategically or subconsciously.

now...what would a super-power with such light in its eyes feel when an out of whack economy seems to be intentionally taking over the world...so to speak...tightening and refining macroeconomics and changing minor domestic regimes in order to shut the US up is all they seem to be doing in regards to keeping the US in its seats..its seems to me like a pat on the back...the sarcastic "yes....sure ur the global policeman...yes..." sort of attitude.

and the US knows it. are they scared? no way. as stated earlier...they could just blow eachother up, so to speak...but the tension is unmissable. china rightfully doesnt care about what the US says or thinks.they do however accept some terms and conditions (in the most anoyying way) due to the fact that it has become a global norm to do so.

i do not think they pose a threat to one another.they need to remain close to one another, as MTAFFI stated earlier...i would argue however, that china would never agree to helping or signing anything with the US.they are a lone power and i think they would like to remain that way.the US wants to 'control' them..but cant seem to do it due to this attitude of china...

its sort of like china is happy in its own state of simultaneous glory and pity...yet both china and the US seem to want more and more.its just that the US cant sit on its bottom and are too urgent in all matters. perhaps they are both working towards hegemony...(once again intentionally or non intentionally) but the US cant keep its mouth shut..and china do it with this cool fonsy attitude.

or i may be totally wrong. as i said...i do not know anything about global econ or pol...well enough to make claims anyway. these are merely persoanl observations and opinions. i claim responsibility for my personal bias...whatever it may be percieved to be by the next biased reader...

in fright of this post becoming like the initial article below, i bid you all peace and welcome your critisisms...unless your a simultaneously leftist/sexist hag. i am just a girl anyway...i dnt mind stand alone leftists or sexists...but the combination is an eerie and most patronising experience.

peace.
Reply

Muezzin
10-30-2007, 11:11 PM
After a bit of George Lucas-inspired tinkering, I've broken up the text into paragraphs, which should make it easier to read.

If you disapprove of my tinkering, repeat the following mantra:

'Greedo shot first
Greedo shot first
NO YOUNG ANAKIN GHOST IN ROTJ!
Greedo shot first...'
Reply

Woodrow
10-30-2007, 11:22 PM
China is very much an economic force to be reckoned with just some of the things that are happening.

China has entered into deals with many MidEastern countries to become their largest petroleum customer .

China is fast becoming the largest investor in International corporations.

Nearly one third of US businesses are now at least partialy owned by Chinese investment companies.


China has come to the realization that economics is a much faster means of conquest, than military might has ever been.
Reply

Woodrow
10-30-2007, 11:30 PM
Just adding some additional information.

Providing Arms
China and the Middle East

by Dan Blumenthal
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2005

Chinese policy in the Middle East has grown more active over the past decade. With its overriding goal of securing oil and gas to fuel China's economic growth, the Chinese government has actively cultivated its relations with the oil-rich Middle East, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia. In their dogged pursuit of this goal, Chinese policymakers have been more than willing not only to undercut U.S. nonproliferation efforts but also to work closely with governments that export Islamism—despite Beijing's concerns about China's own increasingly assertive Uighur Muslim population. Rather than distance itself from these promoters of jihad, the Chinese government has gambled that embracing Iran and Saudi Arabia in lucrative oil and weapons deals will buy it some protection from their export of political Islam.

Though Beijing has historically tried to avoid direct confrontation with Washington, China's new Middle East strategy is inimical to U.S. nonproliferation goals. Beijing may pledge to adhere to U.S. counter-proliferation policy, but its willingness to cultivate relations with Middle Eastern states, on the back of sales of both conventional weapons and materials applicable to weapons of mass destruction programs, indicates that its promises are insincere. Indeed, as China has grown more confident, it has more brazenly challenged U.S. policies. Consider two recent events: the first was an op-ed published on the eve of the U.S. presidential elections in the official China Daily and attributed to former Chinese foreign minister Qian Qichen, one of China's most distinguished diplomats. Qian blasted the Bush administration's foreign policy:
Source: http://www.meforum.org/article/695

As to the other statements I made above, I will post additional stories about them.

China is not in the business of failing and it's economic strength is very enviable. They are becoming very strong and could very easily soon be a major owner of many of the international corporations.
Reply

Isambard
10-30-2007, 11:37 PM
Im with Woodrow, China is indeed very strong and still growing stronger. Seeing as how America has been in decline for awhile, I can see China becoming the next Superpower which I gotta say has me a bit worried.

US wasnt exactly a nice guy, but at least it was predictable whereas I dont know what to expect from China
Reply

Amadeus85
10-30-2007, 11:56 PM
Dont any of you guys see that China is very weak collosuss? First of all, it is not democratic country. One day, in future, China will experience some anti communistic revolution and the whole system will go down. You cant take away from people the right to choose the ones who rule those people.And how many parties we have now in China? Just one, communist party.All the corporations in China belong to the state. Only a small percantage of citizens take benefits from the economic growth (dang i sound like a marxist :(). China has some hundred riots a day in villages against state's politycy.The devastation of the environment in China is catastrophic. There is no free press, human rights dont exist if you resist the communist party (Tibet!). The population is getting older dramaticly fast. Soon they will have hundred millions of old people. There is also a problem of overpopulation of men in China with 70 million chinese men without chance to get married in near future. So i think that China is in much worse situation that USA. The only benefit of being undemocratic country, is that Chinese can murder their enemies as they want , because their media won't say one negative word about this (Tibet and Uighurs.
Reply

Isambard
10-31-2007, 12:02 AM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
Dont any of you guys see that China is very weak collosuss? First of all, it is not democratic country. One day, in future, China will experience some anti communistic revolution and the whole system will go down. You cant take away from people the right to choose the ones who rule those people.And how many parties we have now in China? Just one, communist party.All the corporations in China belong to the state. Only a small percantage of citizens take benefits from the economic growth (dang i sound like a marxist :(). China has some hundred riots in villages against state's politycy.The devastation of the environment in China is catastrophic. There is no free press, human rights dont exist if you resist the communist party (Tibet!).
There is a certain irony to this.

If you look at economic history of the Asian tigers, pretty much all of them had dictorial govts with huge class disparages more-so than current China. They all boomed and the centralized govt meant little opposition.

So in a sense, Dictatorships are actually better for promoting a strong economy as long as the dictator is smart. A democratic China would be lead to economic stagnation in my opinion just cause of the massive population.

I think China's boom is just an indicator of the move to a new Social Structure of Accumilation.

Thats capitalism for you, always transformative.
Reply

Woodrow
10-31-2007, 01:45 AM
Some more thoughts:

China, the world's fourth-largest economy by GDP, added four companies to the list, more than any other country, bringing its total to 24. Four years ago there were only 11. The new entrants include China Minmetals (No. 435) and China National Offshore Oil (No. 469), which had the highest rate of sales growth of any oil company in the world. After Toyota, Asia's next three largest corporations are now Chinese. But let's not overstate the case: Japan still boasts nearly three times as many companies above the Global 500's $14.9 billion revenue threshold (up from $13.7 billion last year).
Source: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu.../23/100135836/

The following is a report from 2002, very far out dated.But has some interesting facts. The handwriting was on the wall.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

In 2002, there were over 286,000 Chinese-owned firms in the U.S., employing more than 649,100 workers, and generating more than $105 billion in revenue. These Chinese-owned firms accounted for 1.2 percent of all nonfarm businesses in the U.S., 0.6 percent of their employment, and 0.4 percent of their receipts.

The number of Chinese-owned businesses grew 13.2 percent between 1997 and 2002, and the revenues decreased 1.1 percent.

The 2002 Survey of Business Owners (SBO) defines Chinese-owned businesses as firms in which Chinese own 51 percent or more of the stock or equity of the business. The data in this report were collected as part of the 2002 Economic Census from a large sample of all nonfarm businesses filing 2002 tax forms as individual proprietorships, partnerships, or any type of corporation, and with receipts of $1,000 or more.

KIND-OF-BUSINESS CHARACTERISTICS

In 2002, 32.5 percent of Chinese-owned firms operated in professional, scientific, and technical services; and accommodation and food services, where they owned 2.3 percent of all such businesses in the U.S.

Wholesale trade accounted for 40.5 percent of all Chinese-owned business revenue. Table A shows the five industries accounting for the largest receipts for Chinese-owned firms.

GEOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

California had the most Chinese-owned firms with 110,823 firms or 38.7 percent, with receipts of $56.2 billion or 53.5 percent. New York was second with 57,673 firms or 20.2 percent, with receipts of $10.2 billion or 9.7 percent. Texas was third in number of Chinese-owned firms with 13,735 firms or 4.8 percent, and receipts of almost $5.2 billion or 5.0 percent. Table B shows the seven states with the largest number of Chinese-owned firms and corresponding business revenues.
Source: http://www.census.gov/csd/sbo/chines...offindings.htm

In a class of their own

A new breed of Chinese private firms is putting the skids under local SOEs, and offering foreign competitors a run for their money

--------By Mark Godfrey

Too many suits disembark from business class in Beijing and Shanghai with dreams of grabbing the Chinese market by the scruff of the neck. There was a time when many did, and made fortunes. But that was a different China. Today, the one billion potential customers have local heroes, a new crop of Chinese companies which have risen above the deadwood of state-owned firms and the rustbelts left behind when China began bending its economy down the free market path.

The free market future looks bright - literally. At WuXi PharmaTech's 250,000 square foot pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturing plant in Shanghai's Jinshan District, 700 scientists in lab coats walk naturally lit corridors between labs. The state-of-the-art research center and laboratory does R&D and manufacturing for multinational drug makers. From an office above the lenses and chemical trays, founder and CEO of WuXi Dr Li Ge has overseen earnings multiply a hundred fold since the company opened with 19 staff in 2001. Between 2001 and 2003 WuXi revenue grew from US$400,000 to an impressive US$9.7 million.
Source: http://www.sinomedia.net/eurobiz/v200602/story0602.html

It does appear that Communism is failing in China, but the Chinese economy is booming.
Reply

Keltoi
10-31-2007, 11:48 AM
I don't see the Chinese communist party staying in complete control of the government there for too many more years. Perhaps another 20-30 at the most. With more and more people wanting to take advantage of the growing Chinese economy, the communist policies will clash with the urge for free markets.

Over population really isn't going to be a major problem, unless a popular pro-democracy movement takes hold with the younger generations, which could happen.
Reply

sevgi
10-31-2007, 12:44 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
I don't see the Chinese communist party staying in complete control of the government there for too many more years. Perhaps another 20-30 at the most. With more and more people wanting to take advantage of the growing Chinese economy, the communist policies will clash with the urge for free markets.

Over population really isn't going to be a major problem, unless a popular pro-democracy movement takes hold with the younger generations, which could happen.
i'd give it 10-20 years...

over population wont be a problem in terms of???
Reply

MTAFFI
10-31-2007, 03:55 PM
this is a prime example of what i was saying at the beginning of this thread

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071031/economy.html?.v=3
Reply

Woodrow
10-31-2007, 05:33 PM
Originally Posted by MTAFFI
this is a prime example of what i was saying at the beginning of this thread

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071031/economy.html?.v=3
Which means the site we should all be visiting is:

http://www.clearchinese.com/learn-chinese/index.htm
Reply

sevgi
11-01-2007, 12:53 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Which means the site we should all be visiting is:

http://www.clearchinese.com/learn-chinese/index.htm
mine was in english

lol.
Reply

Woodrow
11-01-2007, 01:41 AM
China is going to be very interesting for the next generation or 2. with the current attitude of the Chinese People, communism can not last. Ironically as democracy and free enterprise decline in the Western countries it is growing in China. at the crrent rate of change, China will soon become the center of Democracy and free Enterprise.

That is if nothing stops the current attitude.

Ironically, the country that showed the highest level of support for the free enterprise system was China, with 74 percent agreeing that it is the best system. Others that were nearly as enthusiastic were the Philippines (73%), the US (71%), and India (70%).
Source: http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/pipa_market.html



there is a paradoxical process in economics that almost guarantees China's growth and future strength. Taken from the above referenced article:

Broadly, most agreed that “The free enterprise system and free market economy work best in society's interests when accompanied by strong government regulations.” This view was endorsed by two out of three overall (65%). In 18 countries this was endorsed by a clear majority, with Indonesia (86%), the Philippines (77%), and China (76%) being the most definitive. It was endorsed by a plurality in Poland (47%) and attitudes were divided in South Korea (46% agreed, 43% disagreed). In not a single country did a plurality or majority disagree.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-01-2007, 01:52 AM
We need to remember just how deeply invested China is in the US. Who do you think the US has borrowed all those billions of dollars from to fund things like the war in Iraq. Its largely china. China further exports tons and tons of goods to the US. The Chinese economy and US economy are so strongly linked that it is difficult to imagine either side willing to go to war with the other.
Reply

MTAFFI
11-01-2007, 01:07 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
We need to remember just how deeply invested China is in the US. Who do you think the US has borrowed all those billions of dollars from to fund things like the war in Iraq. Its largely china. China further exports tons and tons of goods to the US. The Chinese economy and US economy are so strongly linked that it is difficult to imagine either side willing to go to war with the other.
i very much agree with this, and even more so than worrying about going to war with one another they are also linked very strongly in economic terms, it would be a huge blow to the Chinese economy if the US economy were to fail. Think of the amount of exports that the chinese would lose on, the chinese export as much to the US as they do to the entire EU, not to mention the "1/3 of US business's they are invested in" as mentioned above. Obviously they would fall just because the US did but it would be a severe blow
Reply

Keltoi
11-01-2007, 03:07 PM
Originally Posted by MTAFFI
i very much agree with this, and even more so than worrying about going to war with one another they are also linked very strongly in economic terms, it would be a huge blow to the Chinese economy if the US economy were to fail. Think of the amount of exports that the chinese would lose on, the chinese export as much to the US as they do to the entire EU, not to mention the "1/3 of US business's they are invested in" as mentioned above. Obviously they would fall just because the US did but it would be a severe blow
Yes, but I think China and the U.S. are slowly starting to realize that their economic relationship is built on an artificial economy. The U.S. dollar is growing weaker while the Chinese purposely devalue their own currency. This was the trade-off with exporting our manufacturing base to other countries. The wages of the American worker go down, but the American worker gets to buy cheap Chinese products. The only problem is that the American worker is increasingly unable to make ends meet with one job.

I don't know, to be honest this economy creeps me out.
Reply

MTAFFI
11-01-2007, 06:30 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Yes, but I think China and the U.S. are slowly starting to realize that their economic relationship is built on an artificial economy. The U.S. dollar is growing weaker while the Chinese purposely devalue their own currency. This was the trade-off with exporting our manufacturing base to other countries. The wages of the American worker go down, but the American worker gets to buy cheap Chinese products. The only problem is that the American worker is increasingly unable to make ends meet with one job.

I don't know, to be honest this economy creeps me out.
It is pretty creepy, but just keep in mind that this is a natural process. Think of 10 years back, in economic terms that is really not a long time, or even better yet take a look at economies throughout history. You have to have lows to get to the highs, it is kind of like the saying "You couldnt be happy if you didnt know what it is to be sad". The US economy is a strong economy and it will continue as such, probably, for a very long time. There is still plenty of room for expansion and our climate, land and people are so diversified that it allows for more industry, products and as I am sure you guessed the american people favorite - CONSUMPTION. Our country is home to some of the biggest corporations in the world, some of the richest people in the world and our GDP is still significantly higher than anywhere else in the world (at least as far as a country our size goes). We have to endure this downward slide in order to hit the bottom to bounce back out, it is only natural, scary but natural. You also have to realize that the media perpetrates alot of the noise, because as everyone news bad news is good news for the news companies. Here are some charts of our economies bumpy past.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Surv...me=CE_cesbref3

this is a very interesting article
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art2exc.htm

this shows why it seems slow right now, but really in comparison to the last 30 or so years we are really still growing just not at the exponential rate we were at the beginning of the new millenium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...after_1975.svg
Reply

Walter
11-01-2007, 08:58 PM
Hi Everyone:

What you must remember is that a decision to go to war or to do something that is not in your country’s best interest is rarely rational. You just need one reckless leader to act on impulse and wreck his country in the process. History is full of examples of such reckless leaders.

Regards,
Grenville
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-07-2012, 07:27 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-16-2010, 08:04 PM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 11:43 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-13-2009, 08:22 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-22-2009, 09:57 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!