Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Zinja,

    But you made this very politically charged statement way before Astralis' "the CCP cannot get away with what it could do 15 years ago, let alone what it could do 25 years ago" reply

    i would have said no. But as it turns out, everyone is happy to sell their lives for China's expansion. The world's most industrialised countries will stagnate or even shrink whilst China booms.

    International trade is and was never a zero sum game. if you believe people have to "sell their lives" for trade, you are living in a wrong planet. I expect this type of charge from a 18 years old college student posting at Puff-po, but not from WAB.

    China and India's bloom is due to economic liberalization, pro-business, pro-growth policies, being "cheap" helps but it is far from being the main component -- even with the latest protest, wage increase, China is still preferred over other third world nations, for a reason.
    Last edited by xinhui; 03 Aug 10,, 16:19.
    “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 667medic View Post
      Sir, who needs the army when you have the PAP....
      The Army outguns the PAP. Yes, we're talking civil war here. Not anytime soon but the point here is that there is a limit the CCP can push before the army pushes back. There is a point when soldiers will not stand the oppression of their own families.

      Originally posted by Zinja View Post
      That is the crux of the matter. This is why i said to Astralis as long as a regime has a firm grip on the military and the nation's security apparatus, short of outside international intervention, there is little that the citizenry can do.
      But that is not your point, your point is and I quote

      Originally posted by Zinja View Post
      who is to stop the CCP from running tanks over its citizens? The Chinese citizenry?
      The answer to your question is the Chinese Army who has family being run over by PAP tracks.

      Comment


      • #33
        One big problem with this idealism is even if she does, she will still be extremely dependant upon fossile fuels such as coal and oil. Her waterways are a sewer and heavy polluted on a regular basis so in a way the economy dont look so bright when you will pay much higher prices for energy needs and more then likely bottled water. That in itself (water) is in high demand and not enough fresh natural resources to go around.;)
        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
          China will suffer from rapid aging in the next 30 years, and a large loss of population in 60 years.
          Can you tell me what China's economy will be in the 30-60yrs you are talking about? I think you are the one not getting it.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by xinhui View Post
            Zinja,

            But you made this very politically charged statement way before Astralis' "the CCP cannot get away with what it could do 15 years ago, let alone what it could do 25 years ago" reply

            International trade is and was never a zero sum game. if you believe people have to "sell their lives" for trade, you are living in a wrong planet.
            Hmmm? Xinhui, i think you are misunderstanding everything im saying here. Firstly you implied that i was saying that Obama is a command economist when i meant the other side. Now you are implying that im saying people 'have to seel their lives for trade' when im actually speaking against that. Re-read my posts, honestly i think were are at cross purposes here.

            Originally posted by xinhui View Post
            Zinja,
            China and India's bloom is due to economic liberalization, pro-business, pro-growth policies, being "cheap" helps but it is far from being the main component -- even with the latest protest, wage increase, China is still preferred over other third world nations, for a reason.
            The West and other countries around the globe are way more liberalised than China but why is everyone flocking to China and not these other places?

            Of cause the population (mkt size) and the consequent cheap labour has everything to do with the influx.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              But that is not your point, your point is and I quote

              The answer to your question is the Chinese Army who has family being run over by PAP tracks.
              Sir, you are coming from a different discussion from that i was having with Asralis. This is what i said
              The notiong that some day the Chinese are going to revolt against the gvt as they become more empowered to me is too simplistic and too early to be considered in the forecastable future. From Zimbabwe in the south to Russia in the north i think we have seen that as long as a gvt has a strong grip the military and its security apparatus, they can pretty much fend off any disent
              The post you quote was in response to Astralis after he responded to the above quote. By Chinese i was refering to the civilian and by gvt i was refering to gvt and all its apparatus, including the military.

              According to your post it seems you are of the opinion that the CCP has no control of the military, that changes the discussion altogether. I will look around and see what other sources say about CCP's grip on the military. Out of interest, what about the PLAAF? The PLAN? If push comes to shove, any resistance by the PLA without the PLAAF would be disastrous.

              Comment


              • #37
                This article misses out on three important aspects of Chinese economy. First was covered by Astralis, about the demographics, ie, aging population structure of China.

                Secondly, Chinese economic growth is sustained by exports(As of now mainly dependednt on the US). Meanwhile US consumption levels are on steroids. They are both like two drunks walking down the street and leaning on each other so that they don't fall down, at least that is how things stand for the present. However, US economy was once a great producing/manufacturing economy. So they still have the ability to recaliberate their economy. China on the other hand could eventually hasten "real" domestic consumption. But for now, the outlook is not so healthy.

                Thirdly, in order to focus on the problem of consumption, China is channeling its surplus cash into unproductive infrastructure projects(more than required) rather than balancing govt spending with organic consumer spending. Hence the cliched "Bridges to nowhere". I have read somewhere that China has already spent in advance the next 15 plus years worth allocations on infrastructre projects. This could pose medium-long term problems. Private sector is facing problems as well with overcapacity.

                In a way it is ironic that by overtaking Japan, China has cloned the problems plaguing Japan as well.

                The above follows with the caveat that economic commentators/forecasters have been woefully wrong before!



                Has China peaked too soon? | Crikey
                Last edited by indus creed; 03 Aug 10,, 21:22.

                Comment


                • #38
                  The China demographics business is overblown. There is strong statistical evidence suggesting widespread cheating of the one child policy, especially when it comes to girls.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Zinja
                    Xinhui, i think you are misunderstanding everything im saying here. Firstly you implied that i was saying that Obama is a command economist when i meant the other side.
                    Might want to get your sarco-meter tuned up. ;)
                    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Zinja View Post
                      According to your post it seems you are of the opinion that the CCP has no control of the military, that changes the discussion altogether. I will look around and see what other sources say about CCP's grip on the military. Out of interest, what about the PLAAF? The PLAN? If push comes to shove, any resistance by the PLA without the PLAAF would be disastrous.
                      Not quite. The CCP still controls the CMC but the PLA reports to the CMC, not to the CCP. While on the surface, this may seems a trivial thing, it practice, it separates the military from the party.

                      In short, without the PLA's approval, the CMC could not issue the orders the CCP wants.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by armchairgeneral View Post
                        might want to get your sarco-meter tuned up. ;)
                        lol
                        “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Zinja,

                          The PAP is commanded by the State, sorta like the Chinese version of the national guard headed by Civilian governors. Why would the PLA willing to give up power, one might ask? Because it tasted power (during the late 1960s) and in 1989 and it does not like it. The rise of the PAP might be viewed "balance of power" with Chinese characteristics and the PLA loves it.
                          “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                            One big problem with this idealism is even if she does, she will still be extremely dependant upon fossile fuels such as coal and oil. Her waterways are a sewer and heavy polluted on a regular basis so in a way the economy dont look so bright when you will pay much higher prices for energy needs and more then likely bottled water. That in itself (water) is in high demand and not enough fresh natural resources to go around.;)
                            That is a worrisome trend to be sure.

                            There is another way look at it -- The world finally has a race for wind/solar power, because the Chinese is pushing that front so hard. Competition is the name of the game in a capitalist economy and at the end of the day, everyone wins with more Renewable power.




                            January 30, 2010
                            China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy
                            By KEITH BRADSHER
                            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/bu...gewanted=print

                            TIANJIN, China — China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.

                            China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.

                            These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.

                            “Most of the energy equipment will carry a brass plate, ‘Made in China,’ ” said K. K. Chan, the chief executive of Nature Elements Capital, a private equity fund in Beijing that focuses on renewable energy.

                            President Obama, in his State of the Union speech last week, sounded an alarm that the United States was falling behind other countries, especially China, on energy. “I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders — and I know you don’t either,” he told Congress.

                            The United States and other countries are offering incentives to develop their own renewable energy industries, and Mr. Obama called for redoubling American efforts. Yet many Western and Chinese executives expect China to prevail in the energy-technology race.

                            Multinational corporations are responding to the rapid growth of China’s market by building big, state-of-the-art factories in China. Vestas of Denmark has just erected the world’s biggest wind turbine manufacturing complex here in northeastern China, and transferred the technology to build the latest electronic controls and generators.

                            “You have to move fast with the market,” said Jens Tommerup, the president of Vestas China. “Nobody has ever seen such fast development in a wind market.”

                            Renewable energy industries here are adding jobs rapidly, reaching 1.12 million in 2008 and climbing by 100,000 a year, according to the government-backed Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association.

                            Yet renewable energy may be doing more for China’s economy than for the environment. Total power generation in China is on track to pass the United States in 2012 — and most of the added capacity will still be from coal.

                            China intends for wind, solar and biomass energy to represent 8 percent of its electricity generation capacity by 2020. That compares with less than 4 percent now in China and the United States. Coal will still represent two-thirds of China’s capacity in 2020, and nuclear and hydropower most of the rest.

                            As China seeks to dominate energy-equipment exports, it has the advantage of being the world’s largest market for power equipment. The government spends heavily to upgrade the electricity grid, committing $45 billion in 2009 alone. State-owned banks provide generous financing.

                            China’s top leaders are intensely focused on energy policy: on Wednesday, the government announced the creation of a National Energy Commission composed of cabinet ministers as a “superministry” led by Prime Minister Wen Jiabao himself.

                            Regulators have set mandates for power generation companies to use more renewable energy. Generous subsidies for consumers to install their own solar panels or solar water heaters have produced flurries of activity on rooftops across China.

                            China’s biggest advantage may be its domestic demand for electricity, rising 15 percent a year. To meet demand in the coming decade, according to statistics from the International Energy Agency, China will need to add nearly nine times as much electricity generation capacity as the United States will.

                            So while Americans are used to thinking of themselves as having the world’s largest market in many industries, China’s market for power equipment dwarfs that of the United States, even though the American market is more mature. That means Chinese producers enjoy enormous efficiencies from large-scale production.

                            In the United States, power companies frequently face a choice between buying renewable energy equipment or continuing to operate fossil-fuel-fired power plants that have already been built and paid for. In China, power companies have to buy lots of new equipment anyway, and alternative energy, particularly wind and nuclear, is increasingly priced competitively.

                            Interest rates as low as 2 percent for bank loans — the result of a savings rate of 40 percent and a government policy of steering loans to renewable energy — have also made a big difference.

                            As in many other industries, China’s low labor costs are an advantage in energy. Although Chinese wages have risen sharply in the last five years, Vestas still pays assembly line workers here only $4,100 a year.

                            China’s commitment to renewable energy is expensive. Although costs are falling steeply through mass production, wind energy is still 20 to 40 percent more expensive than coal-fired power. Solar power is still at least twice as expensive as coal.

                            The Chinese government charges a renewable energy fee to all electricity users. The fee increases residential electricity bills by 0.25 percent to 0.4 percent. For industrial users of electricity, the fee doubled in November to roughly 0.8 percent of the electricity bill.

                            The fee revenue goes to companies that operate the electricity grid, to make up the cost difference between renewable energy and coal-fired power.

                            Renewable energy fees are not yet high enough to affect China’s competitiveness even in energy-intensive industries, said the chairman of a Chinese industrial company, who asked not to be identified because of the political sensitivity of electricity rates in China.

                            Grid operators are unhappy. They are reimbursed for the extra cost of buying renewable energy instead of coal-fired power, but not for the formidable cost of building power lines to wind turbines and other renewable energy producers, many of them in remote, windswept areas. Transmission losses are high for sending power over long distances to cities, and nearly a third of China’s wind turbines are not yet connected to the national grid.

                            Most of these turbines were built only in the last year, however, and grid construction has not caught up. Under legislation passed by the Chinese legislature on Dec. 26, a grid operator that does not connect a renewable energy operation to the grid must pay that operation twice the value of the electricity that cannot be distributed.

                            With prices tumbling, China’s wind and solar industries are increasingly looking to sell equipment abroad — and facing complaints by Western companies that they have unfair advantages. When a Chinese company reached a deal in November to supply turbines for a big wind farm in Texas, there were calls in Congress to halt federal spending on imported equipment.

                            “Every country, including the United States and in Europe, wants a low cost of renewable energy,” said Ma Lingjuan, deputy managing director of China’s renewable energy association. “Now China has reached that level, but it gets criticized by the rest of the world.”
                            “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              There is another way look at it -- The world finally has a race for wind/solar power, because the Chinese is pushing that front so hard. Competition is the name of the game in a capitalist economy and at the end of the day, everyone wins with more Renewable power.

                              Agreed Xinhui, the only troubling part is jobs. Many countries right now appear to want to keep their Domestic markets moving so there could be a fatal fallout of Imported materials suppling Domestic jobs. It will be interesting to watch and see who corners the "green" market in the next couple of years.
                              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by xinhui View Post
                                Zinja,

                                The PAP is commanded by the State, sorta like the Chinese version of the national guard headed by Civilian governors. Why would the PLA willing to give up power, one might ask? Because it tasted power (during the late 1960s) and in 1989 and it does not like it. The rise of the PAP might be viewed "balance of power" with Chinese characteristics and the PLA loves it.
                                I have the theory that one can measure the professionalism and efficiency of a military the extent to which it is interested in intervening and staying in civilian affairs. Of course, that is a general rule of the thumb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X