China to Become World's Largest Economy by 2035, Double US by 2050

Well, the only ones who can stop the Chinese are the Chinese themselves. But the west are doing the just the opposite to stop them. Demonizing China and fanning hatred only make their nationalism stronger, and their social structure even less likely to tumble. To win a war you have to respect your enemy. Similar philosophy maybe applied to non violent competitions as well.

 

that would be W and the NeoCons.

have u been to the 5th ward in NO, before Katrina ?

 

Pirc1, you can't be serious.....every hegemonic power has been the same, why will China be different?


History always repeats itself, the powerful will always behave the same, likewise for the weak .......... as long as resources are finite, we will always be after each other....

 

There isn't a finite quantity of ideas. Resources may be limited, but wealth can grow.

 

give me something that can grow based on nothing.

 

how about the extreme deficit spending that has been perpetuated by W ?

 

that doesn't really answer the question though.

 

All intellectual property industries such as movies, games and other assorted software. Some services could be included in an answer as well.

 

intellectual property implies an underlying standard of physical property.

The only reason intellectual property can be "valued" as physical wealth is because people have enough material wealth so that they can pursue it.

the entertainment industry is only an outgrowth of a culture that has no other outlet for its excesses. i guarantee you subsistence farmers wouldn't give two craps about any intellectual property industry. You're missing the point. A song is still produced by someone who has to be fed, clothed, housed, and paid.

I guarantee you that in a resource-constrained scenario backstreet boys songs will not be considered as "wealth."

In other words, intellectual property as wealth is only a social construct.

 

What's good to overtake the top economic spot if you used up all the resources, including quality of air, and capitalizes everything well into the future to support the living standard of 1/5 of the population?

I doubt the development pattern of China can go on much longer. The development is fueled by cheap labor. As it becomes more scarce, the next round of development should come from cheap intellectual labor, which will meet social resistance.

 

I doubt your claim, such as it is, is based on anything of substance.

Japan's post WW2 econ development, for the first ~30 yrs, was fueled by cheap labor.

for the most part, China has been following Japan economic steps, with one exception, in that China allows for foreign investment.

 

China and India's can't keep up at the pace becasue their downfall will be energy. When they run out they are going to march on the mideast and that will be the last days of humanity.

 

There was a famous paper by Roubini and some other economist in Columbia about Asian economies, of which the basic economic structure of China is the same. If you take a serious look at the productivity in China and its economic structure, you can see the problem. In fact, some top Chinese economic officials has the same worry. If you go to China west of Wuhan, you can also get a picture.

Funny you mention Japan. Japan hasn't been in fast tract for more than 15 years now.

 

Even ideas are based on something. Some ideas go beyond a practical and immediate use, such as interest from debt.

Interest earned is based on time. It can grow without any energy added upon it.

Wealth is a social construct.

 

The advance of sciences can turn things that were thought useless or having no real value into valuable resources, such as turning silicon which is one of the most abundant materials on earth into semiconductor chips. If we can someday somehow get controlled nuclear fusion, then we basically turns the ocean into fuel. In these cases the resources are always there, but the value of them change with what one can do to them.

 

A bi-polar world is much better than a uni-polar one.

 

I just stepped into to say I'm fairly amazed at the depth of understanding in this thread and the reasonableness of the debate. It has a real 'one planet' feel to it that is going to be required to attack the problems the next generation is going to have to deal with.

The one factor most of these future projections are lacking in is environmental degradation and the possibility of catastrophic disaster. If 4 or 500 million Chinese move to the coastline and seas levels rise to inundate that land, 20 or 30 years of economic gains could be lost.

Both the US and China have enough coal resources to sink the great cities of the planet. How do you mitigate the desire of people to live the American dream?

(How is the net population of China trending? Is the one child policy actually reducing population?)

 

there are cleaner ways of buring coal. that's what they should focus on.

as for population, it is not decreasing right now. but it's not as many as if there wasn't any one child policy. i heard someone said, china will probably have 1.6 billion or more (instead of 1.3 billion). but the population is aging, so i would say, within 50 years, you will see population reduction. at the moment, it is stablizing. the same can't be said about india though, i believe in 10 to 20 years, there will be more indians than chinese.

the one-child policy is not simply an enforcement of 1 child. it's a comprehensive education system. in the beginning, forceful abortion happened. but since it's been going on for almost 30 years, urban population are generally knowledgable with the population issue. it's the country side that still needs more time. country folks are allowed to have more than 1 child.

 

without actual resources where would the money come from? without money, there would be no interest. all of the things we use are based on something concret. without an actual product, there will be no service sector, interests, so on.

interests grow without energy? maybe because it used energy to get there at first place. and if you take out energy consumption right now, can you tell me, the economy will continue to grow? i don't think so. without energy, the whole world is going to a **** hole.

 

Actually since most (all?) countries abandoned the gold standard and adopted fiat money, there is no real underlying basis for the value of wealth, it has value only in terms of it's relative exchange, what someone will trade you for it. The idea of a Central bank and limited reserve rate can create wealth out of only "policy".