You're misunderstanding my point. You're basically saying that "lots of Chinese are very good at their field". I'm pointing out that "little to no Chinese are the very best at their field". China doesn't push the technology barrier. It doesn't make the core components to high tech machinery. It has to rely on imports from developed countries for the modern machinery necessary for its production facilities. Until I see China coming out with the new cleanest power plant, the most amazing new microchip, basically any technology that spreads and sells all over the world, I have trouble putting China at the top tier in terms of developed countries.
I don't think anywhere I said that Chinese are best at their field or implied this. (What I did mean to say is that there is 1. a sense of ambition/aggression in their culture, 2. that their education pushes everyone to take the toughest courses, even if finishing doesn't imply learning or their majors don't require that learning and 3. that the rate at which china is "evolving" is something America has long forgotten. Costs are low and there's no bureaucracy - stuff just gets done; even if it's bad but it still gets done unlike the US where every bill is locked for months.) What I'm mainly trying to imply is that China is already on pace to be the superpower of the next century, even if one doesn't recognize it right now (although I personally think they should easily be considered one). I'll play along with what you said though. I wish I had the article link but there was a poll among top executives and they said the only American job that can't be outsourced easily to the Chinese in the next decade is probably the CEO position. I could comment about how seeing science competitions here show how innovative that 1% of Chinese can be (which is still a huge volume) despite their copying everything but I think innovating leading edge is besides the point of a super power. It doesn't matter if they produce leading edge because they will own the middle ground for everything; that is the sweet spot on cost curves usually anyways. China has size and numbers, better lower level and midlevel labor, low costs, will copy almost everything we do, a strong military, strong manufacturing, and countless things - they have already strongly affected policies around the world for at least a decade now and that effect will only grow for the next century to come. That affect on policies is why they are already a superpower.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...n=Feed:+reuters/topNews+(News+/+US+/+Top+News) (Reuters) - China's GDP figures are "man-made" and therefore unreliable, the man who is expected to be the country's next head of government said in 2007, according to U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks. Li Keqiang, head of the Communist Party in northeastern Liaoning province at the time, was unusually candid in his assessment of local economic data at a dinner with then-U.S. Ambassador to China Clark Randt, according to a confidential memo sent after the meeting and published on the WikiLeaks website. The U.S. cable reported that Li, who is now a vice premier, focused on just three data points to evaluate Liaoning's economy: electricity consumption, rail cargo volume and bank lending. "By looking at these three figures, Li said he can measure with relative accuracy the speed of economic growth. All other figures, especially GDP statistics, are 'for reference only,' he said smiling," the cable added. Li is widely expected to succeed Wen Jiabao as premier in early 2013, a position that will put him in charge of policy making in the world's second-biggest economy. A news official in the Chinese foreign ministry declined to comment on the specific cable and referred to comments last week in which a ministry spokesman called on the United States to resolve issues related to the leaks. A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy to China was not immediately available. Chinese economic numbers, especially at the provincial level and lower, have long been viewed with suspicion by analysts. "That China's GDP is not reliable, especially for local GDP, that is nothing new," said an economist with a foreign bank who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of discussing top national leaders. "Some of the volume data, such as power and rail freight and even (bank) credit, are interesting because there is less incentive to massage them at the local level. But they reveal only part of the truth, not the entire truth," he said. "This would be a useful measure for steel and cement production. I'm not sure how well it would measure retail sales." Li would naturally have been most interested in heavy industry in his stewardship of Liaoning's economy. The province is one of China's top producers of steel, petrochemicals and machinery. STATS Skeptic Li has also gone on the record before to ask for more from the government's statisticians. During a 2009 visit to the National Bureau of Statistics, Li asked whether China calculated GDP on a monthly basis. Li pressed on when he was told that data was gathered quarterly and that monthly calculations were difficult.
how can you not love the one child policy!! wish US would implement taxing people after their first kid so could get rid of all the poor r****ds craping out kids left and right
This is very deceptive and terrible logic. Sales can totally rise 20% while fuel use only goes up 3-5%. If you have a million cars on the road and selling 10,000 a month. Then next month you sell 12,000. That's 20% increase in sales. But only a net increase 1.2% in cars (assuming no cars are retired). So there ya go, 20% increase in sales, 1.2% increase in fuel usage. The article is complete bogusness
The Chinese govt has consistently been passing measures that would lead to a soft landing on the real estate bubble. Also, and this has to do with culture over pragmatism, the Chinese are infatuated with buying houses. And when I say "buy", I don't mean 10% down and 30-year loan. Usually they get 5-10 year loans or even everything upfront. There are many potential problems with the Chinese economy. But at least for the near future, a housing bubble is unlikely to be one of them.
We seem to be mostly in agreement, except for the bolded part. I don't believe China holds the "middle" so much as "low-to-middle" area. Which I don't believe is the sweet spot. I guess my opinion is that in the end, it's the owners and shareholders who get by far the biggest piece of the pie. And those still resides mostly in the US.
