The Economist had a really good article back 3-6 months ago about China and its critics. Their study showed that even with a real estate bust they would be okay, their economic foundation can take the hit and still move forward. The only countries that I see as potential superpowers are Germany, China, and Brazil. But it won't happen any time soon, probably take 20 to 50 years.
I think people can make a really good living on $60k for whatever the rest of their elderly life maybe outside of the US and Europe, you got to consider that other costs in those countries will always be cheap no matter how developed their economy will be come due to the cheap labor that is available. But back to topic, I don't think China will ever be a superpower in the sense of what the United States was 20 years ago. Just because no single country could ever be so dominant in the world anymore. Due to globalization and the rise of other countries no single country could influence the world in such a way like what the US used to do in the present global climate, not even the US.
Perhaps that sensitivity and caring nature of yours can be put to better use in your local community, instead of crying about a country half a world away because those cheap sandals you bought at WalMart worn out after a week
Generally it means that China is making its economic reports better than it should be. Enron is a great example of cooking the books.
I agree with the middle class argument. But I'd argue that, while China has a great income divide, it's middle class is growing. The urbanization of the population is the movement from poor to middle class. That's the nature of industrialization of a country and is what we went through as well. Our situation today is the opposite - our distribution of income is now getting worse, and that is a very real concern. So while China is in the wrong place, they are moving in the right direction. We're in the right place, but maybe moving in the wrong direction.
No. You were distracted by the smoke coming from your brain trying to come up with a clever reply and still ended up looking stupid, because it's quite obvious you've failed grade 1 math. Tell me, in your example, suppose the average Chinese earns $3,000 a year, how is he able to save >50%, or $1,500? Well, someone who passed grade 1 math would tell you it's because his annual expenditure is <= $1,500. Put another way, in one year, the average Chinese is able to save 2 years worth of expenditures. Holy ****, what a concept. And yet you think over the next 11 years of retirement life (reaching about the Chinese life expectancy), they'd run out of money, assuming hyper-inflation does not occur. What a joke. Your pathetic nominal $60,000 over 40 years don't hold much water once you realize those $ are nothing more than paper, or under more flattering terms, "legal tender." Fact of the matter is, it always was about wealth, not money; purchasing power, not nominal income; living quality, not shine and flash. And the fact of the matter is, the cost of living is very low in China. The other fact of the matter is, if you had half a brain, you'd know that by far the largest portion of a Chinese person's expenditure is housing cost, far greater proportion than US, Japan, Europe, etc. Well guess what, by the time the average Chinese retires, he will have the mortgage paid off for years. He will have no personal debt. He will have no debt of any kind. But he will have his savings and a small pension. If you think the average retiree is better of fiscally than the average Chinese, you should just go get your head examined right now. But then again, we already knew from before that we'd find nothing there from before don't we?
There is no hoax. It is not in China's slightest intention to be the next world dominant superpower. Quite opposite, China has been singing it is still a developing country in the world forums. These days international issues are pretty linked to trade. Just by the sheer size of Chinese market, China holds tremendous leverages in negotiating some of those issues. That isn't going to change even if China's real estate market collapse, or else.
Resorting to personal attacks again? Like China, your muscle-flexing is another sign of weakness. Maybe you should just stick to copying US industrial designs and adding melamine to everything.
Wait - so when we conduct military exercises, it's actually a sign of weakness? Interesting that you focused on the personal attacks as a way to avoid all the substance of his post, which pretty much was spot on invalidating your earlier point.
Internationally, China can do no right. China says I am still developing, well, China is taking advantage of special and deferential treatment. China goes out and does things necessary and appropriate for the country, well, China is flexing its muscle. And fxxk it, China's superpower is a hoax.
His post was ridiculous. If the Chinese economy is growing at a rate of catching up to the United States by 2025, then along with that growth will come a substantial increase in domestic consumption. Domestic consumption will drive up prices, and the cost of living will be comparable to other developed economies. It's a paradox to say that China will be able to overcome its aging population issue because they have saved 50% of their income. If they overcome the aging population issue, then that total amount of savings is meager and the Chinese (either from the government or their family) will be forced to divert resources toward helping the elderly leading to dramatic decreases in current levels of economic growth. If the savings are enough, then the Chinese economy has not grown enough to make the Chinese rich. FT.com has this to say on the issue of Chinese flexing: China loses by building an unnecessary barrier around itself. As a result increasing flexing, Obama and ASEAN representatives issued a joint statement saying their comprehensive partnership would be elevated to a "strategic level."
Taking steps to resolve international spat or border issues isn't necessarily equal to "muscle flexing". China didn't put on a military parade and tell Japan/ASEN/India to submit on those issues. How else do you suggest China act in those situations. Just fold like a sucker? Where did China go out of international customs in resolving these issues.
Not at all. Just calling it like it is. You've never had much of a point and you've exhausted your free-rides long ago. It would have a personal attack if I didn't prove you a moron. Lesson from one time China's richest man. There are two forms of innovation. The first is outright invention, but that's very hard to come by. The second he called "re-organization." I'd actually call it improvisation. The idea is that you take an existing product, then either make incremental improvements, or a better way to build/deliver it. Both innovations. For example, Google wasn't the first search engine. As China is technologically less advanced, it's taking primarily the second form. But it is winning. At the end of the day, only morons such as yourself cares who came up with the idea was supposed to who made money with the idea. If you have a source other than basically every credible financial institution out there, I'd love to hear it. Once again, you fail to understand what real term means. Real wage wise, China has grown over 30 times over the past 30 years. Real wage wise, the US/Europe/Japan has stagnated. The trend is unmistakable. If you had money to bet on one pony in terms of maintaining a current life-style, it's pretty clear which one you'd bet on. Please. Pretty much the entire developed world has a demographics issue. The worst case being Japan. If it gets any worse, OMG, China will have to actually change its non-existent immigration policy in which 498 people successfully immigrated since it first being allowed in 2005; or it could scrap the one child policy, there are already rumours. The idea that a demographics issue, other than over-population, would cripple a country is silly, unless you're talking about Japan. And I've sure you're kidding about the savings part. Macroeconomics 101: GDP = C + I + G + NX - NI China has a lower C in percentage terms but a much higher I through investment of savings. Guess what, so does Germany, South Korea, to lesser extents. Put undiplomatically, ASEAN/SE Asia/Australia are Chinese colonies for the long run. They will fear losing leverage/influence to China and will depend on China economically, for the foreseeable future. It's a symbiotic relationship that either would want to jeopardize. Otherwise the US would have conquered Canada already.
Wow, do we really want to hint ASEAN/SE Asia/Australia are Chinese colonies for the long run, even "undiplomatically"? You lost me on this point. Say what?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony Let's not let the negative connotation associated with the past 200 years distort the real meaning hmmm.
I would not be surprised if you were banned from posting. Your remarks would hold more weight in this conversation, if not for your blatant immaturity. Real growth comes from innovation. Google was not the first, but they certainly innovated beyond. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...oming-decade-Research/articleshow/6274168.cms
