Per capita income is a red herring in the super power talk. Switzerland, UAE are high on per capita income, but nobody would put them on the super power list. It's the military power, global influence, etc. China is a super power just by the sheer size of the country. Not that I say it's a good thing a super power w/ low per capita GDP. What's in the OP's quoted article are indeed a huge concern for China. One thing behind all this is that economic growth serves a important political function. Right now the numbers are substitutes for many things lacking in China. That said, I remain hopeful that China will change and improve. It needs time, and I think it's on a good track. You have got to see some positive improvements in terms of freedom of speech etc. To me the most important thing is whether the govt will relent some its power to the judiciary, legistlature, press. Power is delicious and the CCP operates on different political philosophy than the West. Now, to the point of this thread, China of course is a super power, just it has been for the last 50 years.
You honestly believe the Chinese government carry out that policy to all its citizens? Are you also perhaps interested some prime swampland real estate in Florida?
I haven't been to china, but have had colleagues go there and work there for extended period of time. However there is a huge divide between the rich and the poor. The guard to the complex people stay at might make a 100 dollars a year, but you have guys driving 10 bmw's. When they were watching cnn or something when a story about china was coming up it would get blacked out. Long term this can't be good for society if you know much about history. The same thing is kind of happening here in America and that is troubling. The countries that have high qol are countries with a large middle class.
The power in China at some point needs to understand a country is not all about how wealthy the country and its people, but also about fairness, equality and basic human rights. Now I think the some higher ups in CCP are very aware of this and hope the country is just taking its time to think about it. You certainly hear and see things at the society level demanding fairness, equality and fairness. What's encouraging is there are signs govt are listening and changing, although slowly. To me I just hope the positive things I have seen are sea changes, not just adaptations to grip the power.
So China is everyone's favourite in the race...I see. What is the GDP per capita of India then? I hear they are everyone's dark horse in the race too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita According to the IMF (2009): United States: 46,381 . . . China: $6,567 . . . India: $2,941 So I guess tomorrow you will start another thread with a title like..."The India Superpower Darkhorse Hoax?" ... Seriously, you need to know the difference between nominal GDP and GDP per capita.
It's a classic Guns vs Butter argument. China will not be able to expand militarily if its population is impoverished because of the social tensions that will arise.
I doubt China will greatly expand its military as long as its people are content. They have nukes and they've poured research into cheaper disruptive countermeasures against sophisticated weapons. They're more focused upon economic growth.
Tell me why does this define a superpower? Are you saying because China has a low per capita income it is economically irrelevant? That no other country is dependent economically on China? Or that China somehow has no influence whatsoever on world affairs? Why is that you find that extrapolating the meaning of GDP per capita to a billion-plus person nation has the same effect? Yes theres a huge chunk of poor people living in China but that doesn't deter its economic influence. Its like saying a large state school is irrelevant because its per student endowment is lower. Lets see UT's total endowment is $7.2 bilion (out of total 16 billion to whole school system) and a per student endowment of $144,880. And Wabash College has a total endowment of $272.2 million and a per student endowment of $485,882. In fact Columbia University, Duke University, Emory University, and Northwester University all have lower per student endowment then Wabash. Really how can we expect UT to be a good school if thats the case.
Now you have moved to another argument. You are trying to predict the widespread of social tensions. I honestly do not have a crystal ball like the one that you have so I have no opinion on this one. Please go ahead to give Miss Cleo a run for her money. Back to the topic. I thought we were talking about the GDP per capita. Isn't it the main theme of your thread? My point is that the GDP per capita of India is less than 1/2 of China, but they are widely regarded as the dark horse to become a super power. Is it enough to show you that your argument based on GDP per capita is flawed?
No, because India too will not become a super power in the next 20 years for a lot of the same reasons. You cannot have a super majority of impoverished citizens and maintain global projection.
Well, if you still insist that GDP capita is a good indicator, I have to rest my case here. You certainly deserve to have your own opinion. Look, I am not even arguing with you whether China or India will become superpower. I am not interested in it at all. My whole point is that your argument based on GDP per capita is not very smart. Have a nice day.
Yes, you can. Aggregately, China is the 2nd largest economy in the world, and maintains a super size military force. Are you suggesting this will change 20 years later?
Where did I ask that? I asked how does your whole lower per capita GDP factor into how economically influential a nation is. Are you saying China really has no economic standing in the global scheme of things? Its nice thats all you pulled out of my post. Let me reiterate again, how does extrapolating the meaning of average GDP to a billion-plus person nation have the same effect? Lets try it again, according to your argument its like saying a large state school is irrelevant because its per student endowment is lower. Lets see UT's total endowment is $7.2 bilion (out of total 16 billion to whole school system) and a per student endowment of $144,880. And Wabash College has a total endowment of $272.2 million and a per student endowment of $485,882. In fact Columbia University, Duke University, Emory University, and Northwester University all have lower per student endowment then Wabash. Really how can we expect UT to be a good school if thats the case.
If Layman Miller's formulation of superpower is your point of the thread, the stuff you pulled like China's corruption is marginally related. Many serious minds in international relationship studies will argue even US is not a superpower these days under that formulation.
Well well, would you look at that. The monthly Azadre moronic China rant thread. Colour me shocked. Must be that time of the month again. But I always found the Chanos Chinese property bubble dooms them to hell argument funny as hell. No doubt, the Chinese property market is measurably less healthy than it was even 5 years ago, but the "OMG it's collapsing argument" is just funny. If the PBOC's worst case scenario stress test of 60% property price drop which it ordered Chinese banks (which won't happen, and which makes the American and European, especially European ones a joke), it would increase the bad debt ratio of Chinese banks from roughly 1.5% (much lower than US and Europe) to somewhere around 3 to 3.5% (lower than US and Europe). Why? Because Chinese banks, warts and all, aren't leverage 125 to 1 like Ambac, 60 to 1 like US/European hedge funds, 15+ to 1 like US/European banks. A "correction" in the Chinese property market would be the best thing to happen to it, especially if it shaves 2 to 3% of the GDP. China's economic problem for the foreseeable future isn't growth. It's economic overheating. Wen Jiabao probably spends each time dreaming about a property market slowdown and here is Chanos predicting a collapse. What a joke. I always knew you sucked at history. I didn't know you were this bad. By the time '73 rolled around (or if you want to be more definite, '76), the former USSR was already dying. This no mistake regarding the trajectory. Well that's not good. Oh boy, and they only have a life-time of 50+% savings to fall on. That's so unlike the US, where the average saving is what, $40,000 and the social security system is near insolvency.
Work for 40 years, save $1,500 each year, have $60,000 to live on for the rest of elderly life. That's about how much a person in a developed economy can bring home in a year. Sorry MFW, I was too distracted by a Chinese high rise falling over to give your post further thought.
