Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 230

Thread: China overtakes Japan as No.2 economy, US next by 2025.

  1. #151
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,087
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    China will also slow down as more people become aware of their environmental problems. China is experiencing everything the west has experienced during the industrialization era. Cleaning up the process and cleaning up the aftermath of industrialization will be a big drag on the economy. It's quite remarkable that the US is still growing at 3% with all this drag.
    Interesting thought.

    I never heard of an economy actually slowing (or, speeding up for that matter) on the basis of environmental awareness.

    But, China does break out of the box on a regular basis.

  2. #152
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Interesting thought.

    I never heard of an economy actually slowing (or, speeding up for that matter) on the basis of environmental awareness.

    But, China does break out of the box on a regular basis.
    Well, it's logical to assume that.

    It cost money to install scrubbers in smoke stacks, clean up the river, stop dumping waste water...anywhere. There will be government bureaucracies with lots of bureaucrats asking many questions and possibly getting bribes. All this money changing hands without actual products being built is a drag on productivity. Every single rule and regulation takes a tiny percentage out of the economy. Combined, they will slow things down.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  3. #153
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,087
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Well, it's logical to assume that.

    It cost money to install scrubbers in smoke stacks, clean up the river, stop dumping waste water...anywhere. There will be government bureaucracies with lots of bureaucrats asking many questions and possibly getting bribes. All this money changing hands without actual products being built is a drag on productivity. Every single rule and regulation takes a tiny percentage out of the economy. Combined, they will slow things down.
    gunnut,

    It's also logical to assume that China can't keep growing at 10% a year, but every time that notion becomes conventional wisdom, it gets shot down. I think we're up to five cycles now, five times people -- serious scholars, economists and legions of Op-Eds -- five times over the last 35 years people have been absolutely convinced that "this time is different."

    Maybe you're right; maybe this time is different. I just don't see enough evidence to make that kind of call.

  4. #154
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Well, it's logical to assume that.

    It cost money to install scrubbers in smoke stacks, clean up the river, stop dumping waste water...anywhere. There will be government bureaucracies with lots of bureaucrats asking many questions and possibly getting bribes. All this money changing hands without actual products being built is a drag on productivity. Every single rule and regulation takes a tiny percentage out of the economy. Combined, they will slow things down.
    Wouldn't all that be a short term drag until the efficiency it drives catches up?

  5. #155
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Wouldn't all that be a short term drag until the efficiency it drives catches up?
    Yes, if the goal post doesn't move.

    Look at the EPA. We cleaned up the smog problem in LA about 20 years ago (after 20 years of rules and regulations). Then what? Job done? Everyone go home? Nope. The bureaucracy has to justify its existence. The bureaucrats will make up new rules. What's the EPA doing now?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  6. #156
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,087
    The problem isn't that people are killing the planet. That's the wrong way to think about it.

    The problem is that the planet will be here long after we go the way of the dinosaurs ... and the planet still won't care.

    Looking after the environment isn't about saving the planet; it's about saving the species.

    The planet doesn't care.

  7. #157
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Yes, if the goal post doesn't move.

    Look at the EPA. We cleaned up the smog problem in LA about 20 years ago (after 20 years of rules and regulations). Then what? Job done? Everyone go home? Nope. The bureaucracy has to justify its existence. The bureaucrats will make up new rules. What's the EPA doing now?
    But is it driving continued efficiency? I understand that efficiency only matters if the cost Y is less than long term economic gain X. Where are we on that scale?

  8. #158
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Oct 10
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    gunnut,

    It's also logical to assume that China can't keep growing at 10% a year, but every time that notion becomes conventional wisdom, it gets shot down. I think we're up to five cycles now, five times people -- serious scholars, economists and legions of Op-Eds -- five times over the last 35 years people have been absolutely convinced that "this time is different."
    I thought chinese growth figures were never fully trustworthy?

  9. #159
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,087
    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    I thought chinese growth figures were never fully trustworthy?
    There's enough collateral evidence to determine if the economy is growing on a high, medium or low trajectory. Call 10% the high, 7-8% medium and what ever's below that the low line.

  10. #160
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,579
    China still has the opportunity to grow at 10% a year, it's just a question of accomplishing of it. From what I remember, China still has hundreds of millions people working in low-productivity farming.

    They aren't even in cities yet.

    Add in the general low productivity of their industry and, yes, they still have a lot of room to grow.

    A lot of their current problem is inflexibility in the Chinese social model, particularly their financial sector. Their financial sector has never been very good. Their stock market is the equivalent of a roulette wheel, so banks dominate the finances. And originally the government did a good job cleaning up banks in the 90s and got some big IPOs, but the 2008 crisis brought about a reliance on cheap credit and forcing banks to fund projects in order to juice GDP figures.

    To say nothing of the provincial and city governments ability to now borrow massive quantities of money as well.

    Even if they crash, though, they can recover. Financial crises are always temporary.

    The long-term problem is that 1/3 to 1/2 of the people in cities aren't even legally allowed to live in cities, but governments turn a blind eye to encourage industrialization. Ticking time bomb.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  11. #161
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,087
    China's main growth issue today is the lack of the rule of law. When party cadres have to be kicked out before they can be subject to the law; when no one in their right mind would sue the government; when land rights are subject to the whims of officials; when financial investors trade on inside information, without fear of reprisal; and when bureaucrats fear their bosses more than the courts, the cost of uncertainty soars.

    As for financial crises always being temporary, tell that to the Japanese.

  12. #162
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    But is it driving continued efficiency? I understand that efficiency only matters if the cost Y is less than long term economic gain X. Where are we on that scale?
    Well, it depends on what you value more. We can absolutely increase the amount of hardware we produce if environment be damned. But that's obviously not good for long term human health. We can also reach zero pollution state if we really wanted to. But that's at a huge economic cost.

    For example, I'm pretty sure we have all but exceeded what the EPA wanted to do in 1980. We have cleaner water, cleaner air, cleaner everything right now in 2016 than what we had in 1980. Obviously that's not good enough for some people. They want more. So we keep tightening our standards every year, year after year.

    Personally, I think we've gone overboard. We need to swing back to growth over environment.

    China needs to swing from growth toward environment. That's a drag.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  13. #163
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    The problem isn't that people are killing the planet. That's the wrong way to think about it.

    The problem is that the planet will be here long after we go the way of the dinosaurs ... and the planet still won't care.

    Looking after the environment isn't about saving the planet; it's about saving the species.

    The planet doesn't care.
    I fully agree with this statement.

    Earth will be here long after we're gone.

    Our environmental concerns are more about the quality of life for humans and other species. This concern can only come about after our basic needs have been fulfilled. Someone who can't feed his family won't care about the lost habitat of Delta Smelt or Monarch Butterflies. He's trying to make sure his family survives. After food, it would be shelter and clothing. Then some consumer goods. When he reaches the point of having more than enough for immediate survival, he can think about the environment.

    I believe China is hitting that point right now.

    People are starting to care about the air they breath. Beijing is going through the smog problem that hit London and LA in the 1950s. People demanded action back then. And they are now. Growth will slow down as the Chinese tackle their pollution problem. It's a price they have to pay for modernization.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  14. #164
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,939
    z,

    But is it driving continued efficiency? I understand that efficiency only matters if the cost Y is less than long term economic gain X. Where are we on that scale?
    I'd argue that there's elements of both. there's some environmental practices that will drive long-term economic gain, IE greater energy efficiency.

    then there's some practices that are going to be harder to calculate economically. for instance, regulations on smog. the main economic gain would be fewer air-related health issues, but scientifically it's going to be difficult to pin down exactly the number due to a million other lifestyle factors.

    so it's not necessarily true that lax environmental regs will lead to greater economic growth.

    as with most things in life there's few absolutes. some environmental regs will improve long-term growth; some environmental regs may retard it (but may still be worth it in terms of quality of living); some will have hard-to-estimate economic impact.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  15. #165
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    z,



    I'd argue that there's elements of both. there's some environmental practices that will drive long-term economic gain, IE greater energy efficiency.

    then there's some practices that are going to be harder to calculate economically. for instance, regulations on smog. the main economic gain would be fewer air-related health issues, but scientifically it's going to be difficult to pin down exactly the number due to a million other lifestyle factors.

    so it's not necessarily true that lax environmental regs will lead to greater economic growth.

    as with most things in life there's few absolutes. some environmental regs will improve long-term growth; some environmental regs may retard it (but may still be worth it in terms of quality of living); some will have hard-to-estimate economic impact.
    I'd say efficiency gains are mostly from lowered cost. Businesses cannot control revenue, but they can control cost. Efficiency leads directly to higher margins. Waste is not good for any business.

    Of course in the quest of being "environmental," it is possible to discover more efficient way of doing things. But I'd argue that "environmental" itself does not lead to higher efficiency. Profit does.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. From Moscow to Beijing: A journey from past to future
    By Luke Gu in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 19 Oct 09,, 12:05
  2. How China Loses The Coming Space War
    By HKDan in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02 Oct 09,, 06:23
  3. The most Neglected front of WWII
    By beansprout in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 08 Sep 09,, 18:03
  4. The Pentagon Plays Its China Card
    By Deltacamelately in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 21 Nov 08,, 04:21
  5. Top Ten Chinese Military Modernization Developments
    By oneman28 in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 23 Jun 08,, 06:49

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •