The 00's the Chinese Decade and Chinese Triumphalism

This thread was moving along just fine until Teamwork came in to brag on the innovating prowess of a company that makes washing machines and then insulted several people who posted in this thread.

You sound like you need a hug or something.

 

Why is a 13 year old posting in this forum? Pardon me while I take my 147 pounds and wheel myself over to the grill for a late night snack.

 

The nature of this topic will always devolve into a USA v China ****fest.

Many Americans can't see a world where they're not at the top. It's been a few generations, so it's understandable to not be "that generation" that gives up the torch.

I don't mind provided there's some caveats...That the rich/poor disparity shrinks instead of widens and that the people demand reform to our infrastructure to the point where they don't forget after voting for the Hope Candidate...

Having been the best is not what makes the US great. It's easy to forget while living in excess and overexuberance. It makes us selfish, lazy, and riddled with insecurity. It's time to stop rooting for the team and be a part of the team.

 

One fact that got me torched in a previous thread but is nevertheless still true - China's per capita PPP is below world average. They still have a long way to go before they can be considered top dog other than just in total number of people. And I don't think it is an easy thing to do to structurally rework your economy several times over without hiccups, even for much smaller countries. I remember in the 1990's there was talk of Brazil's 'imminent dominance'. Probably not as much as with China, and they probably had some big disadvantages relative to China, but there were people who were proclaiming it as inevitable.

I wish them the best of luck, but they have a long way to go. To me, talk of triumphalism for a country earning per capita lower than the world average is a bit premature.

 

Ottomaton: Does PPP really matter? China has, what, 4 times the population of the US? Assume that the average earnings for the top quarter of the Chinese population is the same as the PPP in the US, would US be the more powerful country? Of course this is theoretical, because I can't imagine any scenario in the near future where this could happen.

I personally think average earnings in a country isn't a big deal when it comes to relative national power. It would mean more in a "would you prefer to be American or Chinese" debate.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of China or India at all, but rather Europe. My point is that our superior higher education system is based on immigrant labor. Because our own people would prefer the high-paying private sector over aiming for tenure at a university. When our monetary supply dwindles, other developed countries would become more attractive to such people.

 

No, I get enough hugs. I just like being more of a grumpy a**hole on the Internet because I don't know any of you. whee internet

I just get mildly irritated when people display a basic lack of economic relations. One country getting richer does not make another country poorer or anything but that seems to be the common thought behind a lot of Americans and their rhetoric towards China. A peaceful rise in economic prosperity is actually good for both parties.

 

Related to this topic, in which both sides' arguments are validated..

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/world/asia/07scholar.html
"Fighting Trend, China Is Luring Scientists Home "

 

Europe has a lot of government debt as well. Their welfare obligations exceed ours, and it creates a less dynamic business environment.

Earning phd's isn't easy. On top of that, tenure is supply limited.

Their system is functional, but their challenges are integrating and assimilating immigrants into their society. One reason is because Europeans keep their jobs for long periods or even to retirement, so their likelihood of encountering diversity is far lower than an Americans.

Maybe educated immigrants are pragmatic about the "best tangible opportunity" when looking for a place to live, but the US will still maintain the most immigrant friendly and adjustable environment in the world.

 

Never been a fan of NYT, but this is a level-headed report.

 

In the noble, Democratic nation of Taiwan every decade is Triumphant.

 

Certainly there is a greater "degree of difficulty" for size. And sheer size does enable you to throw your weight around. But if China is great just because there are so many people, what exactly is the triumph?

Ultimately, if China comprises 20% of the world population but is only exercising 10% of the power... 10% of global power is undoubtedly an amazing, heady achievement. Nevertheless, for China to exercise "only" 10% of the power would mean they are still under performing relative to their potential.

The best analogy I can think of off the top of my head are the big, lumbering fortune 500 companies that barely turn profit - someone like GM. Certainly they are leviathans, and if the size gives them the power to leverage when dealing with vendors. But people aren't rushing to invest in GM or study GM's brilliant business practices, no matter how big they are. If I were going to list all the "great" companies, GM wouldn't be the first one off the top of my head, despite their size.

While I certainly don't expect GM to be able to grow like a startup, I do think it is fair to judge them on their efficiencies, etc. Ond obviously China is in a better position than GM, so I'm not saying China is about to fall apart. And finally, China has done great things in specific areas of the country over the last decade. But I think if there are still 500 million people living as subsistence farmers in Xinjiang and other western provinces, that shouldn't be glossed over. To me, the size is both a great strength and a great curse because of the additional management complexity it introduces.

 

We need take a historical perspective on this issue. In 1978, China was less than 200 dollars per person GDP wise, today I think it is about 2000 dollars per person, an increase of 10 fold for a country this size have never happend before in history (and the number could be much higher if China decouple Yuan from dollar). But even if China grow another ten fold it would still be half the per capita GDP of US today. However, if Chinese can reach that goal in another 30 years, it would be another miracle. if that happens, US and other developed nations will still have higher living standard, but I think China would easily be the dominant economical super power in the world as a whole. Here is a little point to ponder, this year China over took the US as the largest car market in the world, I would never thought I would see this day during my life time when I was a kid in China. At that time I am not sure the whole city of Nanjing with a population of 3-4 million have 10000 cars, let alone any privately owned cars.

 

I guess for me the word "triumphalism" sort of indicates that the total victory has been achieved. China can't quit just yet and rest on their laurels. That is really all I was trying to say. There is much left to be done, and much of it will be difficult.

In no way do I take away from what they've accomplished.

 

Ok, I agree with you on that. The job is never done, that's the major the job of the government, to improve the living standard of its citizens. Something I think many politicians in this country have forgot totally.

 

I don't know if you're a man or a woman, gay or non-gay, it doesn't matter to me. That's not my business. The point is, when you come in here, you know there are going to be sh1ts flying around when things get heat up. This is not the first time, nor will be the last time, and until the forum moderator rewrites the rules and says no more flying poos.

Why get all upset and touchy over jokes and little things ?
I don't get upset when others throw poos at me. I just throw
it back, have a laugh and move on. I don't get sentimental over an internet forum argument. That's not my style. I don't get a prize winning an argument anyway. It's all for good fun.

In the same way, if the players on this rocket team takes personally what some clutch fans say about them, would they want to play for Houston ? The fact is, they don't give a fxxk what fans say. You should take that attitude too.

You should take off your blindfold, go back and re-read this
thread and see who started throwing poos first, and you can also check that the only poster that I throw back the poos at is Deckard since I joined this forum because he's the one dished out the poos first, and when I give it back to him, he whines like a woman.

 

Yup, this 13 years wet his bed every night and he hires
a house keeper to clean up his diapers.

 

I agree with you. But this only provides a "relative advantage". There are also disadvantages. Cost is much higher in the US than any other country. And at least in regards to potential Asian students, VISA issues are a big deal too. Although I guess this is somewhat negligible for the true academic elites, it's still dwindles the pool.

We'll see. I hope you're right though.

So what does the US have to triumph? Can't people just say the US only prospered because our geographical location prevented us from suffering any setbacks from major wars? And that we happen to be living on the most fertile, resource-rich land on the planet? Ask the US to switch lands with China and Japan to see how we like living on lands limited in resources and farmlands.

There are many factors to determining a country's power. Really can't just single out population as the predominant factor. Sure, it matters in terms of people's way of life. But not so much what a country can accomplish in international relations.

Well, by company analogy, wouldn't the US be the GM right now? While China's more like, say, Samsung? I'd say the US is probably the cumbersome company that's bleeding money left and right while trying to support its inefficient structure.

 

I guess I must have missed the article titled "US Triumphalism". Could you point it out to me? If you would be so kind as to show me the post where people are talking about how the USA "triumphed" in the last decade, I would be glad to tear it apart. There would be many things wrong with such an article.

If you really want to stretch the analogy like that, the US would be more like Daimler-Benz right after they bought Chrysler. Certainly, we are loaded in debt and have some really stupid ideas, but we are much smaller and more nimble than GM, and for some stupid reason people keep buying our cars because of their perceived snob appeal.

The point of the GM analogy was that just because you have the largest "number of employees", it doesn't mean you are the best company around. That was the extent of the analogy.

 

Ahh, this is China Hype.

 

I do not doubt it.