China as a Super Power

Red_Sword, you're right, this is an important debate.

"How poor families REMAIN POOR, generation after generation." to you, but I simply say, cheap labor ain't the way out. Those ALREADY POOR familiese, having more birth than recommended (one Boy, or maximun two child) is simply statistically showing - THEY ARE GETTING POORER, if not remain poor, generation after generation. Cause the extra human power they produce, do not getting their family anywhere, nor getting China anywhere close to "resonable" welfare coverage.

Click to expand...

The reason poor families remain poor is lack of capital investment, ie. education. The role of government is to provide all children a strong education to allow them to achieve regardless of their family background. Investing more in education will be more expensive in the short-run but pay off in the long-run. The work and taxes paid by an educated worker--provided they get a good job in an advanced economy--outweigh the education costs. So if you want to reduce poverty, invest more in education and continue building an advanced, diverse economy. Don't limit the number of children. That's short-run thinking.

Population size dose not (THAT) matters, the living standard dose.

Click to expand...

Population growth rate and age structure affect living standards in several ways. First is the issue of aging and dependency ratios. As people get older, their productivity declines and eventually falls to zero when they retire. Who supports them? In developed nations the government supports them through taxes on the working age population. In under-developed nations like China, their children support them. With fewer children per retiree, that is greater burden on the children. An aging population eventually lowers living standards because of the need to support a large number of elderly.

Second, a smaller population means a less diverse economy and more reliance on foreigners. Maybe this won't matter if everyone is on good terms with China, but in reality this is not likely to happen. Even now China faces an arms embargo and their attempts at foreign investment are often blocked for national security reasons. A larger percentage of China's economy under one regulatory roof is probably more economically efficient. A larger population benefits from the synergies of everyone specializing in their own field and trading with each other.

Third, China has been good at leveraging its huge size to win favorable trade terms. Their internal market is so big, with so much potential, that they can demand technology transfers from a foreign company as a condition of their entering the China market, or winning a government contract. Sharing that technology with Chinese companies has allowed China to develop extraordinarily fast and raise living standards faster than most in the West predicted. Foreign companies can afford to ignore Cameroon or Laos if they play hardball and demand foreign technology, they cannot ignore China.

Regarding the Libyan War, China has been a total pussy. They have abstain from a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the war, and then complain about it the next day? China had an opportunity to stop or delay the war with their veto power but they refused to exercise it in-spite of the fact that all the evidence shows they are generally opposed to the war. That is not how any self-respecting country operates, let alone a superpower. Powers inject themselves into important issues and take a stand, then back up their stance with action. Powers try to influence world events. Deeds, not words, as someone important in history said.

Geographer said:

Regarding the Libyan War, China has been a total pussy. They have abstain from a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the war, and then complain about it the next day? China had an opportunity to stop or delay the war with their veto power but they refused to exercise it in-spite of the fact that all the evidence shows they are generally opposed to the war. That is not how any self-respecting country operates, let alone a superpower. Powers inject themselves into important issues and take a stand, then back up their stance with action. Powers try to influence world events. Deeds, not words, as someone important in history said.

Click to expand...

China's failure to act was more an issue to do with maintaining good relations with Saudi Arabia, who was the main driver among the GCC states to take out Qaddaffi, this and the Chinese policy of non-interference other nation's affairs is the basis of Chinese foreign policy, allowing commercial interests to do the talking for them, that said the Chinese will always find a way to profit from any situation irrelevant of who does what.



Here's a good example of how the Chinese act and profit without drawing themselves into direct conflict with the US.

Geographer said:

Regarding the Libyan War, China has been a total pussy. They have abstain from a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the war, and then complain about it the next day? China had an opportunity to stop or delay the war with their veto power but they refused to exercise it in-spite of the fact that all the evidence shows they are generally opposed to the war. That is not how any self-respecting country operates, let alone a superpower. Powers inject themselves into important issues and take a stand, then back up their stance with action. Powers try to influence world events. Deeds, not words, as someone important in history said.

Click to expand...

Don't forget we are talking about international relations and politics right now. Not everything seems such simple. China abstaining makes a lot of sense if you examine from these perspectives: 1. Self-determination: refusal to bandwagon with the Western powers. 2. China's official foreign policies of non-intervention. 3. There are no needs to participate or intervene in anything when the West will "be the bad guy" and do all the jobs on-hand without requiring China to involve in any ways in order to conduct actions against Libya. Lastly, PRC abstaining without vetoing, in a way, also demonstrates that China is still permitting without deterring the actions. It's a "silent-go" for the rest of the P5 states to carry through their agendas. The threat of veto is merely to say, don't go overboard with the actions, as China is watching. China allows the international community to conduct actions against Libya for what they've done as it is deemed appropiate and approved by China as well, but any further actions will be more than enough and unnecessary, if not possibly promoting national self-interest agendas.

Geographer said:

Regarding the Libyan War, China has been a total pussy. They have abstain from a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the war, and then complain about it the next day? China had an opportunity to stop or delay the war with their veto power but they refused to exercise it in-spite of the fact that all the evidence shows they are generally opposed to the war. That is not how any self-respecting country operates, let alone a superpower. Powers inject themselves into important issues and take a stand, then back up their stance with action. Powers try to influence world events. Deeds, not words, as someone important in history said.

Click to expand...

Sure, IF you wanna bring this kind of BS into this topic, why not?

I guess USA is less a pussy - if they are THAT righteous about "bring justice and democrocy" into every corners of the world - they can single handly "doing from behind" and "set Cuba right"... or they can at least wave the righteous UN flag and "finish" the A-hole of N.Korea, once and for all... at least they would not "give Saddam a break", by "Food For Oil" program that throw the good innocent people of Iraq into another decade of tyranny, and enjoys the cheap oil... and what the heck the pussy way is, to have this "6 parties conference", when N.K is doing what it dose, and the rest parties (EVERYONE ELSE) just suck good American dollars, for fun... all those OBL the 2nd, or OBL the 3rd... they would not mess up USA in a later day, when today they get training from USA...

Unless my E-dictionary mulfunction, WHAT USA DOSE, spells right like total pussy...

So Mr. Geographer, we can either continue this BS, or take it that BOTH OUR POSTS are right (shall be) to be deleted by Mod.... and we can talk something more mature, like #111 which I would like to talk furthermore. (The quoted Commentators, news-brokers... I prefer unpaid news, rather than paid news-broker.)

Geographer said:

The reason poor families remain poor is lack of capital investment, ie. education. The role of government is to provide all children a strong education to allow them to achieve regardless of their family background. Investing more in education will be more expensive in the short-run but pay off in the long-run. The work and taxes paid by an educated worker--provided they get a good job in an advanced economy--outweigh the education costs. So if you want to reduce poverty, invest more in education and continue building an advanced, diverse economy. Don't limit the number of children. That's short-run thinking.

Click to expand...

One thing I guess you know, when you read paper - China got the largest unemplyment army, of graduates / degree holders.

This "Invest education! It solves every problem on this planet" mind set - is as simple as "If I keeps growing my stockpile of goods, I would earn more, for granted" kind of mind set.

I am not saying education should not being invested, I just point out certain points you have a tendency to miss all the time - that stuff regarding China, ALWAYS COMPLEX.

Friends of Chinese people can either look into the matters rationally, or simply TRUST Chinese themselves can sort their stuff out. I believe there is an English saying that "Back seat drivers ruins the day".

Geographer said:

Population growth rate and age structure affect living standards in several ways. First is the issue of aging and dependency ratios. As people get older, their productivity declines and eventually falls to zero when they retire. Who supports them? In developed nations the government supports them through taxes on the working age population. In under-developed nations like China, their children support them. With fewer children per retiree, that is greater burden on the children. An aging population eventually lowers living standards because of the need to support a large number of elderly.

Second, a smaller population means a less diverse economy and more reliance on foreigners. Maybe this won't matter if everyone is on good terms with China, but in reality this is not likely to happen. Even now China faces an arms embargo and their attempts at foreign investment are often blocked for national security reasons. A larger percentage of China's economy under one regulatory roof is probably more economically efficient. A larger population benefits from the synergies of everyone specializing in their own field and trading with each other.

Third, China has been good at leveraging its huge size to win favorable trade terms. Their internal market is so big, with so much potential, that they can demand technology transfers from a foreign company as a condition of their entering the China market, or winning a government contract. Sharing that technology with Chinese companies has allowed China to develop extraordinarily fast and raise living standards faster than most in the West predicted. Foreign companies can afford to ignore Cameroon or Laos if they play hardball and demand foreign technology, they cannot ignore China.

Click to expand...

I do agree most of the points you mentioned. I just want to point out, that when you rush to deside "China should dump the &&&& policy.", Chinese experts, people with great minds, and even "China's stack holders"... are thinking and debating these, as well.

That's why I am saying, people are doing what's necessary, to AMEND THE POLICY. And several posts of mine, also points out that anything in China, you just can not RELY ON law enforcement can set things right. - What has been called, "Chinese characteristics".

China's failure to act was more an issue to do with maintaining good relations with Saudi Arabia, who was the main driver among the GCC states to take out Qaddaffi, this and the Chinese policy of non-interference other nation's affairs is the basis of Chinese foreign policy, allowing commercial interests to do the talking for them, that said the Chinese will always find a way to profit from any situation irrelevant of who does what.

Click to expand...

Good explanation, but the gap between rhetoric and actions makes China look foolish. China had a cheap, non-violent way to delay the Libyan War, vetoing the Security Council resolution, and did not use it. Not in a principled way, like "we believe X but the international consensus is more important", but a cowardly way, like "we don't want to take any risks." That is not how a self-confident nation acts, never mind a superpower (the title of this thread).

At some point, China is going to have to take a foreign policy stand not involving Taiwan or North Korea and back it up with action. Are they going to wilt under the pressure? Are they going to play Switzerland again and again? For all the faults of the CCP, their word was more respected because they backed it up with action. When they warned the UN not to cross the 38th parallel in Korea, and the UN crossed it, they went to war. The Korea War was one of the prime reasons the U.S. did not invade North Vietnam.

Geographer said:

Good explanation, but the gap between rhetoric and actions makes China look foolish. China had a cheap, non-violent way to delay the Libyan War, vetoing the Security Council resolution, and did not use it. Not in a principled way, like "we believe X but the international consensus is more important", but a cowardly way, like "we don't want to take any risks." That is not how a self-confident nation acts, never mind a superpower (the title of this thread).

At some point, China is going to have to take a foreign policy stand not involving Taiwan or North Korea and back it up with action. Are they going to wilt under the pressure? Are they going to play Switzerland again and again? For all the faults of the CCP, their word was more respected because they backed it up with action. When they warned the UN not to cross the 38th parallel in Korea, and the UN crossed it, they went to war. The Korea War was one of the prime reasons the U.S. did not invade North Vietnam.

Click to expand...

As Sampan said, cool off because you're coming off like a troll, or maybe you want to derail this thread on purpose with your ranting.

It really doesn't matter how China looks so much, sure Russia might look better, but the Chinese will always seek to ensure their relationship with all the regions' oil producers are amiable, anyone who can't understand that China doesn't want to damage relations with Saudi Arabia has a ridiculously unrealistic expectation of how politics actually work, besides along with Germany, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa, Gaddaffi named China as one of his allies in this conflict and stated that he'll give them preferential treatment as customers. Alienating the Saudis isn't going to benefit China, what justification is there for China to get involved in a foreign conflict when it risks relations with the world's largest oil supplier who actually does want to expand into Chinese markets as much as the Chinese want to buy their stuff?

Why should it? Why should the Chinese get involved in regional spats in areas of the world that have nothing to do with them or present direct threats to Chinese territorial integrity, China hasn't yet claimed to be anything more than a major regional power, Russia on the other hand has long had interests in the Middle East for the last 200 years or so and has a direct land border with the region, China's primary goal is to have stability to ensure economic prosperity, being seen as a neutral party ensures that no matter who wins after the dust settles there's going to be a place for Chinese interests, avoiding the inherent problems of betting on the wrong horse.

The Cold war was totally different, China was a pariah state and the world was politically split between Communist and Capitalist camps, to the Chinese Korea and Vietnam represented existential threats, though today things like that might happen, but only with pre-existing justification.

Hey guys here's some video presentations that talk about China as rising super power or really a reemerging power.







Enjoy