Will India and China rise in the wake of a failing American empire?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

That's a bit unfair, I think the point of the thread is to discuss the topic title, and more people arguing "Yes" than just ALG - look at 180's long and reasoned post. Yes, it's getting a little heated, but threads do that in this forum.

If you can pull utility out of this thread, I salute you.

180's post basically came down to the fact that there really isn't any to pull out.

But the purpose of the thread isn't worth discussing. It will go where it will go.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

I dunno man, there's no award but there's a lot of pride in Americans at being the most prosperous nation on Earth, and they definitely like "Winning." Maybe they don't look at it the same way.

If so, it's a rather dumb sort of pride.

Why do I say that? Because GDP is not your own wealth. Whether in America or in China, there are millionaires and billionaires and then there are homeless people, and there are people in between. Question is - in this scheme of things, where are YOU?

I mean, as of today, the US has still got the largest GDP. But if you're unemployed, broke and homeless in the US, then so what. That GDP is doing nothing for you. Why should you take pride in it.

I was in New York city last year (I even met up with Bliss Sage, one of the forummers here - she brought me around to see the city). I had expected it to be a vibrant, lively place (and yes, it was). But at the same time ....

If you ask Bliss, she might recall and be able to tell you that I was rather disturbed by the sight of the poor people on the streets. Homeless, hungry, wrapped in a blanket, holding up cardboard signs begging for a bit of money.

I kept asking Bliss, "Who looks after these people? How do they get their food? Where do they go, when the weather turns cold?" (Answer: into the subway stations).

I was rather disturbed. In my country, you hardly ever see homeless people at all. Maybe two, in a year.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

If so, it's a rather dumb sort of pride.

Welcome to America.

[Lauxa]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

If so, it's a rather dumb sort of pride.

Why do I say that? Because GDP is not your own wealth. Whether in America or in China, there are millionaires and billionaires and then there are homeless people, and there are people in between. Question is - in this scheme of things, where are YOU?

I mean, as of today, the US has still got the largest GDP. But if you're unemployed, broke and homeless in the US, then so what. That GDP is doing nothing for you. Why should you take pride in it.

I was in New York city last year (I even met up with Bliss Sage, one of the forummers here - she brought me around to see the city). I had expected it to be a vibrant, lively place (and yes, it was). But at the same time ....

If you ask Bliss, she might recall and be able to tell you that I was rather disturbed by the sight of the poor people on the streets. Homeless, hungry, wrapped in a blanket, holding up cardboard signs begging for a bit of money.

I kept asking Bliss, "Who looks after these people? How do they get their food? Where do they go, when the weather turns cold?" (Answer: into the subway stations).

I was rather disturbed. In my country, you hardly ever see homeless people at all. Maybe two, in a year.

Homeless people are disturbing to me too. We get lots of them where I live (Austin, Texas). Apparently Austin is a good city to be homeless in (mild climate, lenient cops) so they come from all over.

In my opinion, a high degree of poverty and homelessness is a symptom of some sort of systemic failure of society.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I was rather disturbed. In my country, you hardly ever see homeless people at all. Maybe two, in a year.

Why? I'd like to know. There are a lot of homeless people in Canada as well, so a country that hardly has any homeless people sounds very attractive to me. To look into I mean and try to understand what sort of 'system' they got going on. Are you living in Australia?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I found these fascinating: China's ghost towns: New satellite pictures show massive skyscraper cities which are STILL completely empty | Mail Online

When people go wrong in their attempt to understand China, the most common error is that they forget the sheer size and scale of everything in China.

The article you cited mentions 64 million homes, fully constructed, and totally unoccupied. 64 million sounds like a huge figure. But it isn't necessarily so. Not in China.

In China, there is a relentless movement of people from the rural areas into the city areas. As of today, roughly 50% of the population live in cities, and the other half live in the rural areas.

BBC News - China census shows population ageing and urban

With a total population of 1.3 billion, this means that there are 650,000,000 people living in rural areas. If 10% of that population moves into the city area, that would already be 65 million people.

Keep in mind that China already has a very large "floating urban population". This refers to the rural folks who travel to the cities on a daily basis, and travel out again on a daily basis, or stay in temporary accommodation. These are people who would like to stay in the cities, but there aren't enough homes.

This article:

Migration in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

reports that in 2004, the estimated floating population of China was 140,000,000 people.

------------------------------

There ARE ghost towns and cities, especially in a certain remote and very large part of China called Inner Mongolia (despite the name, Inner Mongolia is part of China, not Mongolia).

How and why they occur. Typically, in a certain part of inner Mongolia, coal will be detected in a certain area. Plans are made to develop a coal mine. The mine, if developed, could well last for 20 years. So plans are made to develop a town or city, to support the activity around the mines.

So an entire town and city is built.

Then suddenly, it is discovered that in another part of Inner Mongolia, 200 miles away, there is an even richer source of coal, one that can last for 40 years. So the earlier town/city plan is abandoned, and another city/town is built near the new source of coal.

The abandoned ghost cities will stay "ghost" for a long time. Why? Because Inner Mongolia is vast and remote (1.7 times the size of Texas), in the northernmost part of China (very cold) and if the mine isn't developed, there isn't really much reason for anyone to live there.

So that's why you get the abandoned brand new ghost cities in the middle of the wilderness.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Why? I'd like to know. There are a lot of homeless people in Canada as well, so a country that hardly has any homeless people sounds very attractive to me. To look into I mean and try to understand what sort of 'system' they got going on. Are you living in Australia?

No, Singapore. Incidentally, I had earlier mentioned that:

(1) Hong Kong was ranked No. 2 in the world for economic freedom, for 2009, 2010 and 2011. (I didn't mention that Singapore was ranked No. 1).

(2) China and India were the 5th and 6th fastest growing economies in 2010 (10 point something %). Singapore was actually 3rd or 4th, with 14%.

Snerp had also mentioned various figures about GDP per capita. He mentioned that in 2010, the US was $47,000+. In the same year, Singapore was $56,000+ (3rd highest GDP in the world, after Qatar and Luxembourg).

Homeless people are rare in Singapore, but in many ways we are an unusual little country, and we have our own unusual sorts of other problems that you don't see in other countries. For example, we have the longest working hours in the world.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by 180

Second, China is communist only by name.

Earlier I had wanted to say that, but I thought no one would believe me.

But the fact is NOW, China is growing and America is faltering. There's no debates about it. You can argue and say, China is only "appearing" to be that advance... but when you realize that a huge majority of the stuff we use is "made in China", what is there to really argue.

China is actually keeping the cost of living lower, for people in all the countries of the world. Including the USA.

China is the world's manufacturing powerhouse, and the economies of scale it enjoys in its manufacturing, plus advantages such as low labour costs, allows it to sell goods much more cheaply than would otherwise be possible. And China manufactures all sorts of things.

What this means - if not for China, you would be paying more for your TV, hi-fi, coffee table, camera, laptop, pail, school bus, washing machine, light bulb, sofa, torchlight, suitcase, sports shoes etc etc.

And don't be deceived. Even if the brand name on your product is "Nike" or "Sony" or "Philips", chances are excellent that at least some part of the product was made in China.



See the word "China" up there, in the picture?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

I'm looking specifically at the period of communist governance from 1950-present.

From an investor's perspective, I don't care what happened in 1950 or 1960 or 1970 or 1980 .... whether in China or in the USA.

I can't invest in last year's markets.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

if a country is so heavily populated, aren't they going to run out of water?

China has the world's largest population, but in percentage terms they are not growing very much. Something like 0.005% per year.

Reason is their "One Child" policy. The government realised long ago that overpopulation could wreck a country like China, so more than 3 decades ago they implemented the policy.

Plenty of details, but the gist of it is that most couples in China have had only one child.

This is one reason why there are India proponents who say that in the long run, India should do better than China. China has an ageing population which is an economic disadvantage (that Japan and Western Europe are already suffering from).

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

When people go wrong in their attempt to understand China, the most common error is that they forget the sheer size and scale of everything in China.

Don't get me wrong; I'm just providing fodder, not making any arguments. I don't actually try to understand China. China is something I recognize as a country that isn't succeeding in the values I care about, and is an incentive for other countries to move away from those values as well. That's pretty much where my interest ends.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

China is something I recognize as a country that isn't succeeding in the values I care about, and is an incentive for other countries to move away from those values as well. That's pretty much where my interest ends.

I feel pretty much the same way about US. (Does not mean I support China, of course.)

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

I feel pretty much the same way about US. (Does not mean I support China, of course.)

That's fascinating. (Not a Spock joke, my actual reaction. )

Could you elaborate on that? What's your impression of the US?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

I feel pretty much the same way about US. (Does not mean I support China, of course.)

That's fair. I'm invested in the US because I grew up here and it's what I know, to the extent that I know any country. So if I'm going to make progress in fixing any country, this one seems like my best shot.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

That's fascinating. (Not a Spock joke, my actual reaction. )

Could you elaborate on that? What's your impression of the US?

As an outsider, I must confess that it's a one sided reaction so I am not really well informed about the issues that are important to the residents. (like health care/education etc.) What matters to me is those policies that affect me directly or indirectly and that means foreign policy.

I see US as a tough kid on the block who does not care much about other kids and does whatever he thinks is right. He needs all the play grounds, toys, parks, he does not believe much in sharing. Also he does not believe in negotiations. Being a tough kid, he just beats the other kids even on the base of flimsiest suspicion. And as it turns out, most of the times he is not right. As a result, many of the other kids have grievances against him. He feels unsafe and his home is so closely guarded that it's almost impossible to visit unless you are a very, very close friend.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the way I see it. Also, that does not mean I hate Americans because I don't believe hating in plurals. Some of the best, best people I know are Americans. It's just the collective policy of those in power that really puts me off.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

As an outsider, I must confess that it's a one sided reaction so I am not really well informed about the issues that are important to the residents. (like health care/education etc.) What matters to me is those policies that affect me directly or indirectly and that means foreign policy.

I see US as a tough kid on the block who does not care much about other kids and does whatever he thinks is right. He needs all the play grounds, toys, parks, he does not believe much in sharing. Also he does not believe in negotiations. Being a tough kid, he just beats the other kids even on the base of flimsiest suspicion. And as it turns out, most of the times he is not right. As a result, many of the other kids have grievances against him. He feels unsafe and his home is so closely guarded that it's almost impossible to visit unless you are a very, very close friend.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the way I see it. Also, that does not mean I hate Americans because I don't believe hating in plurals. Some of the best, best people I know are Americans. It's just the collective policy of those in power that really puts me off.

Okay, that makes sense. I had heard that was a prevalent perspective on the world stage, but didn't realize the extent of that until I became very active on the internet.

Thanks for your answer.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

As an outsider, I must confess that it's a one sided reaction so I am not really well informed about the issues that are important to the residents. (like health care/education etc.) What matters to me is those policies that affect me directly or indirectly and that means foreign policy.

I see US as a tough kid on the block who does not care much about other kids and does whatever he thinks is right. He needs all the play grounds, toys, parks, he does not believe much in sharing. Also he does not believe in negotiations. Being a tough kid, he just beats the other kids even on the base of flimsiest suspicion. And as it turns out, most of the times he is not right. As a result, many of the other kids have grievances against him. He feels unsafe and his home is so closely guarded that it's almost impossible to visit unless you are a very, very close friend.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the way I see it. Also, that does not mean I hate Americans because I don't believe hating in plurals. Some of the best, best people I know are Americans. It's just the collective policy of those in power that really puts me off.

Americans have a strong anti-statist bent, which means they don't trust anyone with official power. Of course, this also means that they don't act as an effective check against those in official power, preferring to mope around and whine about how their own little lives are being mildly inconvenienced rather than actually take stands, because taking a real stand would be an affirmation of the state. Even the Tea Party, with all its intellectual horror show, was ultimately an exercise in empty rhetoric and minimal action. If we weren't so deathly afraid of actively participating in the state's power games, we wouldn't feel nearly as powerless as most Americans do.

Most Americans don't believe in democracy because they don't know how to take, hold, or use political power. They think of the idea as anathema. Playing politics is a dirty thought. Participating in the system is a fool's errand. "Politician" is a pejorative. So is "lawyer", for that matter.

We had a glimpse, back in 2008, when we elected Obama. That was impressive. And then everyone dispersed. That was partially Obama's fault; he should have kept the apparatus in play and empowered it to push thought at a grassroots level. But since then, and rarely before that, there have been no systematic attempts at democratic participation. So people don't understand what that even means.

The saddest part is that, most of those who care, and still believe, think that democracy is defined by the vote. And thus again, the Tea Party and its rabble-rousing through "voice of the people as expressed in the vote".

And so you get posts like this: https://plus.google.com/110612591265...ts/9Hmxaov6Bq4

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

I see US as a tough kid on the block who does not care much about other kids and does whatever he thinks is right. He needs all the play grounds, toys, parks, he does not believe much in sharing. Also he does not believe in negotiations. Being a tough kid, he just beats the other kids even on the base of flimsiest suspicion. And as it turns out, most of the times he is not right. As a result, many of the other kids have grievances against him. He feels unsafe and his home is so closely guarded that it's almost impossible to visit unless you are a very, very close friend.

That was beautifully expressed.

All I will add is that this tough kid also lacks self-knowledge and introspection. For example, it commits terrible abuses at Abu Ghraib, but still believes it has the moral high ground to go around the world lecturing other countries about their lack of freedom and human rights.

Another example - it scolds China for manipulating the reminbi, but back home, it freely prints money out of thin air. You also get the Snerp attitude - criticising other countries for a lack of corporate governance, and forgetting which country Enron, Worldcom, Lehman, Merrill, AIG, Madoff etc were all about.


Quotable quote from Mr Madoff: "The whole government is a ponzi scheme."

I like Cacheborn's metaphor of the tough kid on the block. But if I had to offer a metaphor, I would offer one of those U.S. singers in the early rounds of American Idol.

The singer steps on stage with great confidence. With impeccable composure, she sings in a horribly offtune manner. And then when the disgusted judges say, "You're out!", the singer loses her temper or looks utterly shocked.

"How can that be?" she says. "I'm absolutely the best singer around here! Simon is so stupid!"

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I like Cacheborn's metaphor of the tough kid on the block. But if I had to offer a metaphor, I would offer one of those U.S. singers in the early rounds of American Idol.

cacheborn's metaphor had the advantage of coming from someone who didn't sound full of themself. You're lacking this.

[Acting Like Godot]

Well, sorry. It could be the effect of reading too much ******** in this thread.

I mean, seriously. Things like Snerp's claim that communist policies have strangled Hong Kong economically.

When the truth is that Hong Hong currently has the second highest level of economic freedom in the world. And has always been either World No. 1 or World No. 2, for the past 14 or 15 years.

You'd be annoyed too, if you knew what I knew.

There must be better ways to "stand up" for America, surely.

[Criseyde]

Hi everyone, this thread seems to be straying close to personal attack territory. Please express your opinions about China and the US without insulting other members. Thank you.

[rawxstasy]

Just wanted to respond to those posts that implied China is still a backward mostly rural country. I went to Shenzhen in 1996 which was the first Economic Free Zone. The people were still wearing the blue and green Mao suits. I saw very few western clothed Chinese. Very few cars. One four star hotel in town. Garbage everywhere, smelly - it was gross.

I went back in 2008 to shenzhen - I was shocked. Modern, everyone in fashionable clothes, cars everywhere. This in 12 years time. I spent most of my time in Guangzhou which is 70 miles away. A huge city, bigger than New York City. But early in the morning the street sweepers are out with their carts and rice farmer hats sweeping the streets. I suppose that will eventually be replaced by trucks.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by rawxstasy

This in 12 years time.

If you had $100 and it earned 10% interest per year, then after 12 years, it would have compounded into $314.

That is like a sort of mathematical analogy ... It provides some idea of what it means for China's GDP to have grown at 10% per annum, for so many years.

[EternalOne]

The USA owes China about USD 900,000,000,000 as of Jan 2011. And a little less, to Japan.

I find that to be a staggering amount of debt. How would any country ever pay that off?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Well, sorry. It could be the effect of reading too much ******** in this thread.

It could be, but it isn't. You were espousing this exact attitude for most of the previous thread, and it carried over. I asked you to use something other than China versus US, specifically socioeconomic conditions, but you decided to go with China-as-Singapore versus US anyways. As I said before, you made this an us versus them argument, and these are the consequences.

Most of the Americans on this forum do not know what you know. But they've largely grown up under the mythos of the American Dream and the Greatest Nation on Earth. Attacking the narrative with which they understand themselves does not help your case. Indeed, what is your objective in participating in this thread?

Are you trying to explain China? The US is largely irrelevant in that discussion. Are you trying to instill humility? Why cast it in geopolitical terms then?

At least in the previous thread, you had the seeming purpose of explaining a cultural difference. Despite my differences with you there, at least you were grounded. Here, it's just an egofest. You feel annoyed by the ignorance? Why did you ask for it to be put on display? Stop pissing and you won't get pissed on.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I asked you to use something other than China versus US

Pssst. In case you didn't notice, I also posted about Australia, Brazil, India, Russia, Japan etc ... Luxembourg, Paraguay, Qatar, Singapore and the British Empire also got brief mentions from me.

I can't help it if most forummers here are more interested to respond and comment on China rather than any of the other countries.

[rawxstasy]

I don't understand the hostility here? Using China as an example is the better choice since it already is an economic powerhouse. We used to be where China is now. Practically everything is made in China now, we certainly can't say that about the US.

I would hope that most people (Americans ) by now have figured out the American Dream is a joke and it's downhill from here. And the idea of America as #1 is a load of crap. Not true anymore.

ALG is better qualified than anyone here to make economic assessments since he is an international banker.

[Neobian]

If the world is chinese speaking, by this time it would have acknowledged china as foremost. Nobody is perfect so every leader has shortcomings .

It is easy for majority of world to have a top leader who they can understand (by english) rather than being intimidated by relatively unknown entity as number 1.

To be number 1, you have to talk and walk the show. And somewhere down the lane, the world has to notice that #2 has overtaken the #1 "DRAMATICALLY" that has world wide consequences, not just between #1, #2.

[Acting Like Godot]

Actually I think that Brazil looks very promising, in the next couple of years. In addition to all its usual strengths, it's going to hold the world's two biggest sports events. The World Cup in 2014, and the Olympics in 2016.

This is very rare, I think. That a country should host two such major sporting events, in the space of two years. These two events will create lots of economic activity in Brazil, not just in 2014 and 2016, but also in the years between and before.

For instance, they are already building new hotels to accomodate the huge number of visitors expected for the events. Roads will have to be widened; the airports will be upgraded; transportation companies get a boost; there will be TV and media rights; advertising contracts; sports merchandise; construction of new sports facilities; plenty of other follow-on effects etc.

This will all lend support to the Brazilian economy, in the next couple of years.

[Spiderguy252]

Brazil is part of the BRICS nations = Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. All emerging economies, them.